Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 112726 times)

cassini · « **Reply #480 on:** September 27, 2014, 01:30:24 PM »

Chapter Thirty-Three

1870-71
The Airy Test

‘The theoretical advances made in the field of electrodynamics by James Clark Maxwell gave occasion to this revival [of stellar aberration]. His equations made it necessary once and for all to get rid of the idea that they could be taken to suggest the earth at rest in absolute space.’ ---- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, published by the author, 1993, p16

Let us now revisit Bradley’s finding of stellar aberration wherein from earth we find all the stars doing a small similar sized circle every year. Bradley and the Earthmovers all said it was caused by the earth’s orbiting of the sun and that the starry circles were only apparent. It could of course be the other way around. In 1730 the eventual turncoat Fr Roger Boscovich suggested a simple, logical and conclusive trial that would, he expected, confirm it was the earth moving that caused stellar aberration, one that would put the heliocentric theory on a more certain footing. The experiment was very easy to conduct, needing only two similar telescopes on earth to perform.
To understand the experiment let us go back to the analogy of a man with an umbrella in the rain. In rain, we know that if a man moves and wants to keep dry he has to allow for his velocity and that of the rain by tilting his umbrella. See here, one man standing, one man moving: Similarly, if two men with umbrellas start to run a race, both have to tilt their umbrellas. But if one man runs faster than the other the faster man (V) will have to tilt his umbrella more than the slower running man (v). See below:

Let us again swap the man for the earth and a telescope for the umbrella. Unlike the one man tilted umbrella/telescope/cloud analogy, which can be interpreted either as a moving man/earth or moving cloud/stars, the above two-man, two speed different tilted umbrellas/telescopes illustration can only be interpreted as the earth doing the moving. The reason for this is because you cannot have the raincloud moving at two different speeds like you can have two men moving at two different speeds.
Fr Boscovich reasoned correctly that if one could conduct an experiment with two earths and two telescopes travelling at different speeds and one of them had to be tilted more than the other, this would, like the two different tilted umbrellas as shown above, prove it is the earth that moves and not the stars. So, how does one conduct an experiment that has two telescopes, one going faster than the other relative to the stars? Well easy, if you follow the logic. You can do it with two similar telescopes but fill one with water. This slows down the starlight passing through it (13% slower). The other air-filled telescope will allow the same starlight to pass through at normal light-speed. By slowing the light passing through one of two similar telescopes pointed at the same star and leaving the other as normal, you in effect set up the two-speed telescope scenario.

The astonishing thing is that there is not one such attempt recorded until 150 years after Bradley’s discovery; yes, 150 years, when The Astronomer Royal, Sir George Airy (1802-1892) in 1871 decided science had now to confirm Bradley’s interpretation. Now why do you think it took so long? We hear so much about this great ‘scientific revolution,’ yet we are supposed to believe not one astronomer or scientist in the whole world engaged himself in what would have verified the ‘fact’ that the earth moved, a verification that would have assured any man, or woman, a place in the history books. Well the reason why they remained silent is because when Airy went public with his ‘tie-breaker’ test it showed the opposite of that result sought by the Earthmovers. (G. B. Airy: ‘On the supposed alteration of the amount of Astronomical Aberration of light, produced by the passage of light through a considerable thickness of Refracting Medium.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 1870, pp. 35-39.)

The results showed the reason why all these ‘great’ pioneers in astronomy ignored the experiment for 100 years, for, we wager, it was conducted many times in private and the results hidden by the Earthmovers and the Royal Society to allow heliocentricism another hundred years to become entrenched into the psyche of man. Walter van der Kamp refers to ‘aborted trials’ by astronomers and physicists ‘Hoek and klinkerfusz’ (Martin Hoek (1834-1873) and Ernst Wilhelm Klinkerfues (1827-1884) before Airy’s test, whatever that means. They were aborted because of the result was not what the Royal society wanted we would guess. Here then was George Airy, in 1870-1, after a simple, logical and physically valid and decisive test that nobody can dispute, demonstrating that stellar aberration - rather than providing ‘proof’ for a moving earth, disproves a moving earth as a consequent of stellar aberration.
Such a logical interpretation of the Airy test was of course unacceptable to the ideological Copernicans. Objective scientific interpretation had ceased with the Copernican revolution. No matter what, geocentrism was never considered a possibility. Accordingly, every possible excuse – by way of ad hoc theories, as to why the Airy test gave a ‘negative’ result had to be proposed. One of these excuses was that of ‘ether-drag,’ a not impossible theory that moving bodies in space, in this case the earth, drag with them some invisible and static ether - if ether exists that is. Experiments done in 1818 by the French physicist Augustin Fresnel (1788-1827) suggested this might be so, but as often happens in this field of science, in 1887 an important experiment cast doubt on this possibility. This history we will record later in chronological order.

Nutation
In 1748 Bradley, discoverer of stellar aberration in 1728 announced he had found a nodding motion of the stars during precession that astronomy now calls nutation. As with every other discovery since Galileo, this was immediately interpreted in a heliocentric fashion. Precession they said was due to the earth’s shape, making it to spin like a top. When nutation was found they said it was caused by the pull of masses towards one another, Newtonian fashion. On a website called Curious About Astronomy we find the following Q & A:

‘Isaac Newton, and others since his day, have shown that the Earth's precession is caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun acting on the oblateness of the Earth. Since it can be calculated so accurately I have to believe it is true. The obliquity, or angle between the plane of the Earth's orbit and the axis, is about 23 degrees but varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees, in-phase with the precession circuit. Is this sometimes called nutation? Some say the obliquity change is caused by the Moon's orbit varying between 18 and 29 degrees to the plane of the equator with a period of 18.6 years. How could this change the obliquity with a period of 26,000 years? Who calculated it? Why should it be in phase with the precession? Is there any known connection between the precession and orbit cycles?

Answer: Thank you for your question. The motion of the Earth's axis of rotation is very complex and is affected by several perturbations. The most important, as you said, is the precession. Due to the action of the gravity of the Moon and the Sun acting on the oblateness of the Earth, the terrestrial spin axis describe circles of an average value of 23 degrees and 27 arcminutes around the normal of the ecliptical plane (the orbital plane of the Earth)…. On top of this motion, there are some irregularities. The plane of the orbit of the Moon is also precessing, with a period of 18.6 years. This causes the celestial poles to describe ellipses, with a semimajor axis of 18.42" and a semiminor axis of 13.72.” What that means is that the motion of the celestial poles around the normal to the ecliptic is not a perfect circle, but is a perturbed motion given by the sum of the precession motion plus the motion on the nutation ellipse.’

‘The motion of the Earth's axis of rotation is very complex and is affected by several perturbations.’ What they mean is that their version of nutation is too complex for anyone to work out but themselves. Given Cassini showed the earth is not a proven oblate, and that there are no perturbations in his oval orbits, the above has no scientific credibility, just two Newtonians speculating together. There is of course another explanation, and here is another by a friend of ours regarding this matter.

‘All Celestial motions - whether perceived as absolute or relative - would seem to be of FIXED periodicity. The marvel by which the Heavenly Canopy phases the periodicities of motional sub-planes tilting in sympathetic resonance with its daily spin, would indeed be difficult to visualise without the help of a spinning gyroscope. The axis of the Great Year Spinning Gyroscope will precess in a Fixed Period of (432 x 60) = 25920 years. While the gyroscopic axis of Spin is seen to precess, the gyroscope point of contact with a surface does not need to move at all, and so it seems fair for the geocentrist to claim that while the gyroscopic axis of spin through the earth will precess in the fixed period of 25920 years, no part of the earth itself needs to move.
The Heliocentrist can hardly claim anything without bringing the Newton-invented forces into their Sanctioned-Conspiracy-Theory. Aside altogether from the fact that Newton never explained what these forces were, his disciples championing the ‘action at a distance-conspiracy-theory’ have to account for billions of mass-distance-relationships that have to be cuмulatively factored-on-the-hoof into multiple-body-equations despite the 3-body-equation having yet to be solved in mathematics. How do these Newtonian conspiracy-theory-consensus-junkies account for the ever-changing billions of ‘action-at-a-distance’ accuмulation of ‘forces’ merging with various perturbation-mythologies and yet be able to yield to the simple elegance of FIXED Periodicity as in the case of nutation (18.6 Years) How often they must envy the geocentrist who does not have to abide by academically-correct conspiracy theories, and whose geocentrist model - far from having to account for Newtonian occult forces - anticipates an axis-orientated accuмulation of shivering in the precessional axis. The fact that the particular shivering of the precessional axis called nutation is of FIXED Periodicity, renders the geocentric model a lot easier to accept than the mythologies of irregularities, approximations and perturbations.’

glaston · « **Reply #481 on:** September 30, 2014, 09:50:53 AM »

Quote from: cassini

The Rev Roberts’s contention then was that whereas the 1616 decree was not an extraordinary definition of a pope defining a new dogma, such as Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it was an infallible act of the Ordinary magisterium defending what was always a matter of faith, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, one of those ‘never intended to be brought to light’ matters of faith as the Council of Trent categorised them. This was the position held by Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and of Cardinal Bellarmine when in 1640 the 1616 decree was introduced as condemning ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine.’ Here then is the abandoned Church position of the Galileo affair; an act of faith forgotten, hidden or denied once those so-called proofs for a fixed sun and double moving earth were accepted. Fr Roberts then considered the Bull of Pope Alexander VII, the Pope who issued ‘Speculatores’ in 1664 that in effect re-condemned Pythagoreanism as formal heresy.

‘Whatever authority a decision can be supposed to possess in virtue of a notice from the secretary of a Congregation that the Pope has ratified it, and ordered its publication, it must possess far more indisputably in virtue of an assurance to the same effect given by the Pope himself in a Bull addressed to the Universal Church. I say far more indisputably, for it might be urged, on the ground taken in the answer, that the clause is not a Papal Act, that it tells us only what the Pope did behind the scenes [1616 decree]; but the Bull “Speculatores” was itself a Papal Act of supreme authority; and by that Act the Pontiff publicly, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, declaring that the Index to which they had been attached by his order was to be accounted as inserted in the Bull itself. I conclude, then, that if all Catholics ought to have inferred, from the Pope’s confirmation by his supreme authority of the Günther decree, that it was infallibly certain that that philosopher’s prohibited opinions could not be sound; if the Louvain professors were bound in conscience to recognise in the decisions that condemned their tenets the judgment exclusively – unice - of the Holy See; à fortiori all Catholics ought to have concluded from the Bull “Speculatores” and the decrees of Paul V and Urban VIII, that it was infallibly certain that heliocentricism was false. And I submit that this conclusion remains untouched by any argument Dr. Ward, or any one else, has advanced. But to say this is not to say that Paul V or any other Pope “defined it to be a dogma of the faith that the sun moves round the earth, precisely as Pius IX defined it to be a dogma of the faith that Mary was immaculately conceived.”
‘Nor can the difficulty I suggest be got rid of by adopting Cardinal Franzelin’s modification of D. Bouix’s opinion. For although the Cardinal does not regard the judgments in question as ex cathedrâ, in the sense of being infallibly true, he is forced, considering the kind and degree of authority claimed for them by the Holy See, to maintain that they are infallibly safe - safe, meaning by the term not merely that those who yield them the assent demanded may do so without risk of being called to account for this act, but safe, in the sense that it is infallibly certain that the doctrine propounded may be embraced by all Catholics with full interior assent, without peril to the cause of the faith, or to the interests of religion.’

That said, the Rev. Roberts then described the situation as a Copernicam whose faith in human reasoning had blinded him into a second heresy:

‘But it is almost as easy [he says] to show that the condemnation of Copernicanism was not in this sense a safe judgment, as to show that it was not a true one, to prove that it was a mistake at all. For what was the doctrine of that judgment as it was authoritatively interpreted by Rome? This: That heliocentricism is false and altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures, meaning by the phrase, as the monitum of 1620 explained it, “repugnant to the true and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, according to the ruling of Urban VIII and the Pontifical Congregation of the Inquisition, the decision taught that heliocentricism is a heresy to be abjured, cursed, and detested with the other heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.
‘Now, it is as clear as daylight that if all Catholics had embraced this doctrine with unreserved assent, “plene, perfecte, et absolute,” all Catholics would have held it to be of faith that heliocentrism is false, and thus the whole Church would so far have been in error in its faith [he says]. But for the whole Church to be in error in any point it holds to be of faith is plainly irreconcilable with the passive infallibility claimed for it by theologians, or even with its claims to be infallible in its ordinary magisterium, for what it believes it will surely teach “credidi propter quod locutus sum.” And apart from this consideration, obviously it must be against the cause of the Christian faith for all Christians to be persuaded that its teachings conflict with, and demand the suppression and complete elimination from thought of, opinions that are on their way to be proved true [he says]…..’ --- Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.13-20.

Having argued that the 1616 anti-Pythagorean decree was infallible, Fr Roberts next addressed the chaotic exegesis that this U-turn left in its wake. Before going on to read this profound synthesis on biblical interpretation, remember when reading all this, we can thank God that we now KNOW the Church was never wrong in its anti-Copernican decrees, be it by way of the popes, the Holy Office, or theologians of the time. We also remind ourselves again that the Rev Roberts was a Copernican heliocentrist like the rest; the only difference was that he was no apologist or minimiser as he called them; he offered no excuses, merely spelled out the consequences if heliocentrism turned out to be correct as he and most others believed. No, Fr Roberts was not a sophist; he was brutally honest and unafraid to admit the 1616 decree was indeed an infallible papal decree and he based his soul on this fact.
Fr Roberts then addresses those apologists who tried to justify the U-turn. The first is the famous Ultramontane Copernican Dr W.G. Ward (1812-1882) - a Protestant convert and a disciple of John Henry Newman, whose summary of the Galileo case found its way into a 19th century Catholic Encyclopaedia. Like Newman, Ward, who also believed heliocentrism was proven, also defended the Copernican exegesis in journals and newspapers as though it were simply an advancement or development in Bible studies, as modernists call it.

Dr Ward: ‘We fully admit, then, that an unobvious interpretation of the apparently anti-Copernican texts is possible; and indeed is, as we now know, the true one. We admit that our Blessed Lord, when He looked up to heaven and when He spoke of ascending to the Father, did but accommodate Himself to existing physical beliefs. We admit that the Holy Ghost, for wise purposes—as, for instance, that He might not violently interfere with the healthy slow progress of physical science—permitted the sacred writers to express themselves in language which was literally true as understood by them, but was figurative in the highest degree as intended by Him. We only say, in accordance with our first proposition, that such an exposition of Scripture would be grossly irreverent, unchristian, and uncatholic, unless there were some overwhelming scientific probability to render it legitimate” (Galileo and the Pontifical Congregations, pp. 155-9).

Fr Roberts: ‘According to these statements the Copernican interpretation of Scripture, the true one, the one intended by God [he says] is intrinsically considered non-reasonable. It is inadmissible on its own merits, and by every sound canon of exegesis. It is so violently opposed to the general drift and implication of Scripture, and to the obvious meaning of particular texts, that nothing short of an express assurance from the Author of Scripture Himself that He really did mean it would render it legitimate. Such an assurance having been given in these latter days through the conclusions of science, the unobvious and forced character of the exposition is no longer any bar to its reception; on the principle that a man may interpret his own words as he pleases. “God,” remarked Dr. Ward, “surely has the right to interpret His own Word, for you would not deny this right to an ordinary mortal” (Authority of Doctrinal Decisions, p. 143).
‘But in Galileo’s time God had given no hint that He had meant anything so extremely improbable. Heliocentrism at that time was “a random scientific conjecture,” with “no leg to stand on.” The ecclesiastical authorities were, therefore, only doing their duty in declaring that it was altogether contrary to Scripture.
‘Desperate indeed must be the cause that stands in need of such monstrous doctrine. Disregarding for the present the grotesque misrepresentation of the scientific status of Copernicanism in Galileo’s time, I ask, who admits for a moment that an ordinary mortal may determine retrospectively the meaning of his words, and be quit of responsibility for their deceptive effect, on the strength of a subsequent declaration, that he meant the very reverse of what he said or wrote? So far as the Bible professes to teach, and contains assertions that demand belief, assuredly it cannot differ from all other books in this, that its meaning must not be held to depend on the, so to say, objective significance of its language, but on the reserved and unexpressed intention of its author.
‘How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an interpretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact.
‘Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it unlawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, therefore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspiration, for the Vatican Council has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. Cardinal Franzelin [1816-1886] has shown that this doctrine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of language, that they choose, and choose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning.
‘Very good. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves [he says] is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one, it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies.
‘The doctrine, therefore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Roman Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’ ---- Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.39-44.

Cop-ernicus > KOP-ernik

Yiddish kop or Yiddisher kop (ייִדיש קאָפּ); lit. Jєωιѕн head, is an Yiddish expression. The latter is used when a person wants to indicate that Jews, of which mainly αѕнкenαzι Jews are meant, are smart (have a good head).
Only an Yiddish kop like Einstein can solve this.

Barbara Kopernik (Watzenrode)
Birthdate:
Death:    Died 1495

Immediate Family:

Daughter of Lukas Watzenrode, Sr. and Katarzyna Watzenrode
Wife of Mikołaj Kopernik, Sr.

Mother of Andrzej Kopernik; Barbara Kopernik; Katrina/Katarzyna Gertner and Nicolaus Copernicus

Sister of Christina von Allen and Lukas Watzenrode, Jr.
Half sister of Jan (Hans) Peckaw; Baltazar Peckaw and Gertruda Jelin

Nicolaus Copernicus
Mathematician
Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at its center.

Wikipedia
Born: February 19, 1473, Toruń, Poland
Died: May 24, 1543, Frombork, Poland
Buried: Archcathedral Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Andrew in Frombork
Education: University of Padua (1501–1503), more
Parents: Nicolaus Copernicus Sr., Barbara Watzenrode

'nuff said!

Lukas >>>
In UK we had a major car head-light manufacturer called "Lucas"
Caroline lucas is the deceptive, misleading 'lune-y' GREEN member of Parliament representing Bright-on, UK

cassini · « **Reply #482 on:** October 01, 2014, 04:06:13 PM »

Chapter Thirty-Four

1887:
The Michelson-
Morley Failure

The word ‘ether’ is not used much these days except when referring to the colourless volatile liquid known by that name. The concept of ether has been accepted since the time of Aristotle at least and was also acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church and indeed entered their discussion on the interpretation of the heavens and ‘firmament’ of Genesis. Ether or aether was considered omnipresent throughout all space (including the earth’s atmosphere), and that it even interpenetrated matter. It is however, difficult to rationalise with ether, for it has always remained outside known scientific certainty. It was considered a medium through which the light and heat from the sun could travel to earth, just like sound-vibrations or the energy that uses the medium of water such as can be experienced in a tsunami.
Our interest in ether goes back to Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation. He proposed matter attracts and that this principle explains his theory of heliocentricism with the sun supposedly attracting all the planets (in which he included the earth) and them in turn moving about the sun in elliptical orbits. ‘Action at a distance’ Newton phrased it. ‘Ghost fingers’ and ‘invisible hands’ others called it, but no one could say how this ‘attraction’ worked across millions of miles of space. One theory was that Newton’s gravitational pull operated through the ether of space as it was named. Ironically, Newton conducted a test that he believed showed that there is no such thing as ether.

‘If space is really empty how is it that the sun and moon exercise influence over the earth? Technical action at a distance is impossible. A body can only act immediately on what it is in contact with; it must be by the action of contiguous particles – that is, through a continuous medium, that force can be transmitted across space. Radiation is not the only thing the earth feels from the sun; there is in addition its gigantic gravitational pull, a force or tension more than what a trillion steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?'

You tell us Sir Oliver, you’re the Newtonian with your ‘gigantic gravitational pull across space.’ The reasoning after Newton was that it had to be ether, a fixed agent in which the universe resides and through which moving celestial bodies and radiation can act. First though, the very existence and behaviour of ether in space had to be investigated. Thinking of the cosmos as a huge goldfish bowl, full of water in which the fish/celestial bodies move about, they asked what effect would a moving body have on the water (ether) or vice versa? Could that effect be investigated by empirical science? Does it remain everywhere stationary: is it a moving firmament as the geocentric Greeks believed: does it act like air or water as a body passes through it, or do these moving bodies drag some ether in their neighbourhood along with it as a body passing through glue would do? Such questions begged answers and science just had to try to find them.

cassini · « **Reply #483 on:** October 01, 2014, 04:12:00 PM »

The nineteenth century saw the beginning of many experiments trying to determine the presence and nature of ether on earth and in space. Assuming the earth moved around the sun at 67,000mph it was thought the ether – due to the aberration effect - would cause a split-starlight beam to move out of focus as the earth turned away from it during orbit. This result was looked for without any success. In 1818 the physicist Augustin Fresnel suggested a possible reason for this earthmoving failure. He then proposed the ether is thicker around matter and less dense away from it in space. Thus the instrument used in the test had dragged the ether along with it as it moved through space.
The next test was to see if ether could be detected in a fairly dense material that was itself moving. The physicist Armand Fizeau conducted such a trial in 1859. Pumping water through a tube that did a u-turn, he sent two beams of light, one with the flow, and the other against the flow, for an equal distance. The beams used did not return in phase indicating the ‘Fresnel drag coefficient’ might have some experimental support after all. Alas, many factors had to be assumed to reach such a conclusion and as we have said again and again, assumptions are not facts. ‘Ether drag’ was only a possibility if the ether exists and behaves, as they believed.
Other physicists then joined the quest. Thomas Young supposed the ether in the neighbourhood of the earth to be stationary while Sir George Stokes again said the earth dragged it. Planck showed that Stokes’s theory could be saved if extraordinary assumptions are made such as that ether is compressible like a gas and also subject to gravity. Lorentz worked out a theory whereby the earth imparted to the ether in its neighbourhood, not the whole of its velocity, but only a fraction of it. Hertz supposed that within matter the ether takes part in the motion of matter, and it is also moving in space free from matter, if you know what he meant. In 1871, when the Airy experiment using two telescopes showed that stellar aberration indicated the earth did not move, the ether drag theory was immediately re-proposed in order to get the earth moving again. But believing and proposing is not proving. Proof for the presence of ether eluded science. Scientists were left wondering what is the true nature of the medium that man presumed carries or propagates waves, particles and whatever?
Now recall that around 1600, when the earth was discovered to be a global magnet with an energy field reaching out into open space and returning uninterrupted, the reality of ether as envisaged became even more necessary. The need to establish some certain facts about ether also came about when Michael Faraday (1791-1867), James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Herman von Helmholtz (1821-1894) wrapped the entire electromagnetic phenomenon into four equations. It was known now that light, lightning, radio waves, ultra violet waves, infra red rays, etc., etc., are all part of a general group called electromagnetic waves, and that all travel at the same velocity of 186,200 miles per hour. Scientific progress now demanded investigation into the agency through which these electromagnetic waves (or pulses) were thought to propagate. This medium, all believed, had to be that known as ‘ether of space’ or ‘luminiferous (light-bearing) ether’ as Maxwell called it.
James Clark Maxwell, whose most important studies included his extension and mathematical formulation of theories of electricity and magnetic lines of force drawn up by Michael Faraday was born in Scotland. At the age of 14 he attended Edinburgh Academy where he showed he had a gift for mathematics.

‘Maxwell proposed that light travelled through an invisible medium, which he named ether. This medium filled all space “unbroken from star to star.” In 1873, he wrote: “There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty but occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform, body of which we have any knowledge.” Maxwell was not the first to propose that some invisible medium fills the vastness of the space. The genesis of the idea can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. For Maxwell there was an obvious need for proposing the idea of the ether. If light was a wave then it seemed obvious that it had to be wave travelling in some medium…. --- Vigian Prasar Science Portal website

‘James Clerk Maxwell converted Michael Faraday's nonmathematical work into the Maxwell Equations that satisfactorily describe virtually all of electromagnetism. These predict the properties and the speed of light, including in transparent materials. Maxwell showed that a few relatively simple mathematical equations could express the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields and their interrelation…. The four partial differential equations, now known as Maxwell's equations, first appeared in fully developed form in Electricity and Magnetism (1873).’ --- University of St Andrews website

‘The electromagnetic equations developed by Maxwell fitted in fact only with an Earth as a preferred frame of reference in absolute space.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Bradley – Airy-Einstein syndrome in astronomy, p.10.

cassini · « **Reply #484 on:** October 01, 2014, 04:17:41 PM »

In the late 1860s German born American physicist Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931) decided to re-enact an experiment performed by Martinus Hoek in 1868 to see if it was possible to detect the orbital movement of the earth using what the called an interferometer. Hoek failed to find any movement but Michelson believed he could do better. With the financial help of Alexander Bell, inventor of the telephone, they rebuilt their own machine that he believed would detect the ether as the earth moved through space.

Taking for granted that the earth flies through space at 67,000 mph (or 30 kilometres per second) as it supposedly orbits around the sun, Michelson reckoned he had all the ingredients to conduct his experiment: (1) the assumed speed and direction of the earth as it orbited the sun; (2) the speed of light, and the presumed existence of ether. With this data, he believed, a definitive and accurate test could be conducted that would demonstrate the existence of ether at least. Michelson first tried this experiment in 1881. His apparatus consisted of two equal arms at right angles to each other and a ray of light passed along each arm. Each arm was provided with a mirror placed at its far end, and thus each ray was reflected back to the junction of the two arms. The idea is simple. If an arm (F arm) is pointed in the direction of the earth’s supposed orbit and a light beam is sent down and back along it, the resistance caused by the ether should be greater than that that on the S arm sideways to the supposed orbital path (called the interference range), just like it would be harder swimming up and back a river than from bank to bank of that same river.

As an equation, if ether (E) is stationary, then the earth’s speed (v) in relation to the ether must be 30 kms/s, i.e., ten thousand times slower than the speed of light © in relation to the ether (E). Therefore, for an observer on earth (also at v in relation to the ether), the beam of light (a) travelling in the same direction as the earth would seem to move at the relative speed of c + v. Inversely, the beam (b) returning to the observer would seem to move at a speed of c - v. To find a way of measuring these different speeds, Michelson’s interferometer would split a beam, causing the (a) part-beam to ‘interfere’ with the (b) part-beam. By analysing the interference fringes, Michelson would be able to measure the difference between the two apparent speeds, i.e., (c + v) - (c – v). The maths involved indicated there should be the equivalent of a 30km/s. difference, i.e., (c + v) - (c – v) = 30km/s.

cassini · « **Reply #485 on:** October 01, 2014, 04:31:23 PM »

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. 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, 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 whatever about the astronomic and physics theories of the day 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. It should have heralded the moment of truth, the finding of an interference fringe (a resistance to one of the ‘half-beams’ of light) that in turn detected the ether and the earth in orbit around the sun at 100,000kph. --- (Albert A Michelson and Edward W. Morley: On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol. XXX1V, No 302 – Nov. 1887, pp. 333-345.)

(All of these expectations were of course built up on the assumption that the earth moves at 67,000mph through space. Since then however, with the further theory that the universe is expanding at huge speed (1,000,000mph?), they would now have to add that to the 67,000mph so the required interference fringe would have to be updated somewhat. To my knowledge no one has ever noticed this new velocity should now be taken into account.)

‘At noon on 8, 9 and 10 July, and at around 6pm on 8, 9 and 12 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? Do they mean ‘null and void’ in that it should have shown a moving earth but didn’t, or ‘null’ as ‘nil’? In fact, this costly and intricate interferometer 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 claimed, but only some of it.

‘It appears… reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the Earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel’s explanation of aberration.’ --- Michelson and Morley, op. cit., p. 341

Thinking that maybe ether diminished in thickness the further away it is from earth, Michelson repeated the experiment at various heights above the earth’s surface looking for a point where this drag would diminish. Again he found nothing. Nevertheless, for some time, partial ether-drag was offered as the reason why the earth’s supposed 30kms/s motion could not be detected in full. [/font]

cassini · « **Reply #486 on:** October 01, 2014, 04:40:55 PM »

In 1892, Sir Oliver Lodge conducted a test with two rays of light passing round a space between two steel discs. His intention was to show that moving matter does drag the ether along with it.

‘The rays described their closed paths in opposite directions. He then made the discs rotate with great rapidity. If these rotating lumps of matter drag the ether along with them it is obvious that the velocities of the two rays should be affected. No influence whatever on the velocities of the rays could be discovered. We may therefore conclude, from this experiment, that moving matter does not drag the ether along with it.’ ---J.W. Sullivan: The Bases of Modern Science, Pelican Books, 1928, p. 155.

This experiment remember, was meant to prove the ether was dragged or partially dragged along by matter as Freshnel and Michelson theorised. But again they failed to produce the goods needed. Quite the opposite in fact, for according to Lodge’s test they could now no longer claim ether-drag as an excuse to dismiss the Airy and M/M experiments as verifying a fixed earth rather than a moving earth. Morley then called in Dayton Miller to help repeat the process in 1904 and in 1905. They built an even bigger interferometer, but they found no interference above three and a half kilometres per second.

An Irish Joke, a Relativist’s Ad Hoc ( The term ad hoc is used here to indicate the adding of assumptions to a model in order to account for the failure of any prediction.)

With the ether drag theory redundant, they had to invent yet another theory to get the earth moving again, another ad hoc. An ad hoc is a theory invented out of necessity. Because the Earthmovers - on philosophical and ideological grounds - could not, cannot, entertain the most applicable of all conclusions to the Airy and M/M experiment, -that the earth does not move, they were forced into inventing even more excuses no matter how ridiculous. So it was that in 1892, a ‘brilliant’ Irishman called George Fitzgerald (1851-1901) suggested that all matter experiences a contraction as the earth forces its way through the stationary ether, and it was this contraction that caused the F arm of the interferometer to shrink in ratio to the light-beam resistance, thus giving the result experienced.
‘Hold on a minute’ interrupts a first-year science student. ‘We can easily check this theory simply by measuring the F-arm and comparing it with the S-arm, yes, and if one is shorter than the other you have a viable theory, yes?’ ‘Sorry,’ answers Fitzgerald. ‘You see the ruler you measure with will also shrink exactly the same ratio as the F-arm. And because both will shrink the same relative to each other, you cannot measure the contraction or shrinkage.’ ‘What’ exclaims our student, ‘even if I use a ruler made out of diamonds? Surely such an inflexible ruler wouldn’t shrink like the interferometer’s arm?’ ‘Yes it would,’ says Fitzgerald with a straight face, ‘the mathematics say that if the ruler were made of the hardest material known and the interferometer arm made of sponge, the shrinkage would always be the same.’ ‘But that is plain nonsense,’ the student replies, ‘surely no one of sound mind would accept such reasoning? ‘Obviously my boy, you are not cut out to be a physicist, so I recommend you turn to some other profession.’ And that dear reader, are the lengths the Earthmovers went to in order to keep the earth moving.

Michelson’s Summary

In 1897, Michelson summarised the situation as follows:

‘In any case we are driven to extraordinary consequences and the choice lies between these three:
1) The Earth passes through the ether (or rather allows the ether to pass through its entire mass) without appreciable influence.
2) The length of all bodies is altered (equally) by their motion through ether.
3) The Earth in its motion drags with it the ether even at distances of many thousands of kilometres from its surface.’

Michelson, we see, was desperate. His first conclusion is a viable theory. His second option is of course Fitzgerald’s wacky ad hoc. For his third option he chooses the ether-drag theory that Sir Oliver Lodge seems to have falsified five years earlier in 1892. Incredibly however - for these men were after all the world’s leading scientists - Michelson omitted a fourth logical possibility based on the outcome of the experiment; that the earth does not move. Now unless all options are considered, the test-results are not being addressed according to the true scientific method. Others however, at least recognise the possibility, but see how they respond to it.

‘Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be “at rest”… It was therefore the preferred frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the earth is not the centre of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?’ --- A, Baker: Modern Physics and Antiphysics, 1970.

And here is another example of the modern ‘scientific method’:

‘Now since the earth moves around the sun at about 18 miles per second, the speed of a beam of light travelling with the earth’s orbital motion should be greater than a beam travelling in the opposite direction. Yet Michelson’s experiment denied this assumption. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw – that the earth was at rest. This, of course, is preposterous.’ --- B. Jaffe: Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1980

Why indeed? And a final example of this ideology:

‘This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe, an ancient idea that had been rejected centuries earlier by Copernicus and Galileo.’ D. Giancoli: Physics: Principles with Application, 1980

So, here we find all the magic of the Earthmovers and the path nineteenth and twentieth century faith and reason has taken. They ‘know’ since Copernicus and Galileo that the earth moves so there is no need to consider it as a scientific possibility, no matter what the experimental method might reveal.
Michelson’s hypothesis number two, the shrinking arms one, the one that came out of the same stable as Alice in Wonderland, was taken up in 1904 by a Dutch physicist, Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-1928), and, although he could give no physical cause for it, he supposedly showed ‘mathematically’ that it was consistent with the governing equations - the electromagnetic equations. These figures had electromagnetic forces causing the moving particles of matter to bind together, even though there was no way of demonstrating his theory. Lorentz however, not being one to seek a reputation for nonsense, admitted later his equations had been extrapolated, i.e., if you know the answer first, then you can make up any mathematics that will give you that answer.

(Say the proof of the 5 we are looking for is 1+1+1+1+1. Does this mean that as long as I know the result 5, I can say 1+4 proves it, or 2+3 proves it, or 1+1+3 proves it, or 15 divided by 3 proves it, or 6-1 proves it, or anything I can make up that comes to 5 and claim it is ‘proven.’ But you must see these formulae, while ‘saving the appearance,’ are not necessarily true.)

Hypothesis number three, which ignored other falsifying tests like that of Sir Oliver Lodge, at least acknowledged the existence of ether.
And that, dear reader; is how the Airy and M/M test results drove physics into the realm of theoretical nonsense. The Fitzgerald/Lorentz contraction convinced few with any integrity left in the science of physics. But the Earthmovers were desperate. Newspapers, journals, articles etc., reflected the panic of the time, each calling for an answer to this appal¬ling vista. Then, slowly but surely, the occult illusionists of modern science began making inroads with their nonsense. The world was now gullible enough to accept anything so long as it came from the mouths of ‘scientists.’
As they saw it, the theoretical question that lay at the very heart of their problem was, ‘what laws do electromagnetic phenomena obey for bodies in motion?’ Maxwell’s equations gave the electromagnetic law for bodies at rest, that is, the earth at rest, but because they believed they had also tested the electromagnetic law (the speed of light) with a body they believed in motion (the earth) and found no difference (showing Maxwell was right), then, they speculated, maybe the two laws are the same. To adjust to this idea, new concepts of space and time were necessary. By this was meant that if the moving system is a rod moving at great speed in the direction of its length, we must attribute to it a somewhat shorter length than it has when at rest. Also, we must suppose that the time between two events on the moving rod is rather longer than when this rod is at rest, if you can follow their logic. In other words, if we want to keep the post-M&M experiment electromagnetic equations the same, we must alter the space/time measurements in the way postulated by Lorentz. Thus by giving this farcical excuse for failure to find the earth moving the grand title of ‘The Fitzgerald/Lorentz Contraction’ it made their ad hoc look scientific enough to go into university textbooks and scientific journals. So, did it end there? Of course it didn’t.

‘The Michelson - Morley experiment was still troublesome. The work of Fitzgerald and Lorentz got rid of the difficulty in a way, but the notion of decrease of distance and increase of mass seemed to hang in the air without an overall physical theory for support.’ --- Isaac Asimov, op. cit., p.338.

Chapter Summary

And that dear reader is where the Copernican revolution stood at the end of the nineteenth century. Two failures (Airy and M/M) to find the earth moving gave birth to a cosmology that is now dominated by ‘theoretical physics.’ What they needed then was ‘an overall physical theory’ to comply with the absurdities their heliocentric ideology had to conjure up to keep it alive while all the scientific tests were showing the earth does not move. And sure enough, that’s what we got, for soon it will be Albert Einstein to the rescue.

cassini · « **Reply #487 on:** October 04, 2014, 01:21:57 PM »

Chapter Thirty-Five
1893:
Providentissimus
Deus

‘In the nineteenth century, as man’s knowledge of antiquity increased, many strange voices began to attack the divine origin and truthfulness of the Bible. In the ensuing storm, the traditional voice of Christendom rose clear and calm in the person of Pope Leo XIII with his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, solemnly affirming that the entire Bible is God’s word, holy and true. He outlined a stricter scientific method for studying the Holy books, which was to bear great fruit in the following years.’ --- The Holy Bible, Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, 1950.

It was under these conditions then, in 1893, that Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) issued Providentissimus Deus, an encyclical on scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics, a papal guide for biblical scholars, theologians and others who interpret, read and teach Scripture. To put this letter in perspective however, we recall that in 1879 Pope Leo declared Thomism the official theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church. St Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, as we saw, ‘carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development.’ This approval of Thomism cannot therefore be contradicted in the 1893 letter.
As any Catholic would expect, having first introduced the reader to a proper view of the Bible, its divine origin, its purpose and use by the Church, its inerrancy in all its parts etc., the Pope then laid out all the principles necessary for proper Catholic reading of the Bible. But now let us sketch out the state of ‘man’s knowledge’ referred to in the quote above. In the nineteenth century, man’s comprehension of some things did grow apace. Often this knowledge gave rise to many fine technological advances under the title of ‘scientific progress.’ As the adage ‘facts are facts’ was coined, and the fruits to be had from these valid scientific advances flourished, the term ‘science’ achieved a new status, respect and trust that bordered on the infallible. There were however, as we have shown, amid accurate and true findings, scientific institutions, with rational or rather irrational philosophies and ideologies, more likely atheistic and agnostic, who indulged more in systems, conjecture and assumptions than in empirical science; men who wished to separate faith and reason and thus pursue and push a totally ‘natural’ answer to the question of origins and functions of the world, all under the name of science of course.

‘Now we have to meet the rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which have been handed down to them….
These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented “free science,” a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it…
The efforts and arts of the enemy are chiefly directed against the more ignorant masses of the people. They diffuse their deadly poisons by means of books, pamphlets, and newspapers; they spread it by addresses and by conversation; they are found everywhere; and they are in possession of numerous schools, taken by violence from the Church, in which by ridicule and scurrilous jesting, they pervert the credulous and unformed minds of the young to the contempt of the Holy Scriptures. Should not these things Venerable Brethren, stir up and set on fire the heart of every pastor, so that to this “so-called knowledge” (II Tim. 6:20), may be opposed the ancient and true science which the Church, through the Apostles has received from Christ that the Holy Scriptures may find the champions that are needed in so momentous a battle.’ --- Par 10, Providentissimus Deus.

Every single one of these ‘rationalists’ were Copernicans, and in the wake of the Airy and M&M failures to find a moving earth, one might have thought any encyclical referring to ‘so-called knowledge’ would have taken note of the mother of all attacks on the Fathers interpretation of the Scriptures. Yes, the above describes the Earthmovers of Church and State to a tee.
Then there were the other far from final ‘scientific discoveries’ like uniformitarianism and evolutionism they asserted that demanded further reinterpretation of the Scriptures for them, especially Genesis, the origin and makeup of the world with its time-scales, revelations of direct Creation, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the historicity of the Noachian Deluge, the Table of Nations and the story of the dispersion from Babel and so on. The Encyclical then moves on to the dogmatic interpretations, those of the Fathers.

‘His teaching [St Irenaeus] and that of other holy Fathers, is taken up by the Synod of the Vatican, adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretations of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that “in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scriptures against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress…. The professor of Holy Scripture, therefore, must be well acquainted with the whole circle of theology and deeply read in the commentaries of the holy Fathers and Doctors, and other interpreters of mark…
Now the authority of the Fathers, by whom after the apostles, the growing Church was disseminated, watered, built, protected, and nurtured, is the highest authority, as often as they all in one and the same way interpret a Biblical text, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals, for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of Doctors unofficially, not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine, and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of his light. ’

Thus Pope Leo XIII confirms the hermeneutical authority of the 1616 decree, of that also there can be no doubt. For centuries the apologists and revisionists have hidden away this crucial link with the infallibility of a fixed-earth, moving-sun reading of Scripture, the books that contain no error at all; the declared fact that it was the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers.

‘That [a fixed-sun, moving-earth] was unanimously declared to be … formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages… [as] they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers…’ --- The Church’s 1633 judgement.

The Encyclical continues:

‘But [the interpreter] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’

‘Beyond what the Fathers have done,’ now there is an interesting statement. Note it does not say ‘different’ to what the Fathers have done. For example, this allows us to speculate: based on the Biblical passages of course, how a geocentric universe works. Let me give you an example. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his 1571 lectures at Louvain University, came to the conclusion that the stars move individually through the space of the universe individually, as we see them, and that they were not inserted in a moving solid aether of the universe.
That said there is no doubt the wording is ambiguous enough for others to use them as a way out of the 1616 decrees ruling. Was it written so with the geocentric U-turn in mind? Surely not, for would that not be contradicting his earlier teaching on the absolute authority of all the Fathers and Aquinas? But then that is what happened from 1741 to 1835. Moreover, no Father took a geocentric wording as figurative or allegorical. Later in the Letter however, came another opportunity for the Apologists:

‘Knowledge of the natural sciences will be a great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture, by which he can more easily discover and refute fallacious arguments of the kind drawn up against the Scriptures. Indeed there should be no disagreement between the theologian and the physicist, provided that each confines himself within his own territory, watching out for this, according to St Augustine’s warning: “not to make rash assertions, and to declare the unknown as known.” If dissention should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St Augustine for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”

First we are told ‘knowledge of the natural sciences will be a great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture.’ The trouble is, as we have shown again and again in this synthesis, long before the encyclical Providentissimus Deus ‘natural science’ or natural philosophy, had been institutionalised by Freemasonic societies such as the Royal Society of England wherein crucial scientific conclusions such as heliocentrism, the age of the earth and universe and evolutionism were arrived at by consensus rather than by scientific proof, with most data interpreted on ideological grounds. But again the encyclical hints at the Galileo case, for wasn’t it ‘knowledge of natural science,’ or rather what Churchmen thought was knowledge of natural science, that led to the U-turn on the 1616 decree. But in the Copernican world of 1893, we have no doubt that every man in the Church that read the words above believed that knowledge of natural science had proven heliocentrism, whatever about uniformitarianism and evolutionism where a few were still holding out. In other words, this encyclical’s advice, while perfectly sound as the Pope meant them, would have had the very opposite effect to that intended, the search for truth. So while the principle itself was absolutely correct, we now see how the words could be and were used to contradict the interpretations of the Fathers.
Given science has now admitted that no ‘real demonstration’ for a fixed-sun/moving-earth ever existed, nor is likely to be demonstrated, a position declared by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615 the above teaching by St Augustine can only be used to support a traditional geocentric interpretation. Furthermore, as St Augustine advises, given a heliocentric reading was already defined and declared by the Church as contrary to the Scriptures, this encyclical passage too can only be used to support a fixed-earth, moving-sun reading of the Scriptures. But was it, is it?

cassini · « **Reply #488 on:** October 04, 2014, 01:46:17 PM »

‘In short, on the one hand Leo was supporting the principle denying the scientific authority of Scripture by means of a quotation from Saint Augustine. On the other hand, the encyclical also contained a supporting argument: this principle provides the explanation of the fact that demonstrated physical truth is given priority over literal biblical assertions, and the fact that sacred authors wrote by accommodating their writings to common language, belief and observation; these facts are explained by the principle, which in turn justified by them. This structure of reasoning was the same as that advanced by Galileo.’--- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.266.

There lies the confusion and contradiction presented to Pope Leo XIII by the U-turn of 1741-1835. In short had he to accommodate the contradiction long enacted by the Copernican take-over of Scripture? And it was the ‘supporting argument’ of this encyclical that had to be seized by the apologists in order to try to justify that U-turn. But as we have shown above this could not be legally done by way of any ‘supporting arguments’ presented in this encyclical. Nor could this be done if 333 encyclicals were written trying to do the same.

Pope Leo XIII continued:

‘To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.” Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to. The unshrinking defence of the Holy scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect’

Here again we find the confusion presented by the same Copernican U-turn. First of all the Encyclical begins with the following teaching: ‘[The Scriptures] being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.’ Cardinal Bellarmine taught ‘Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’ Recall Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII endorsed this teaching in their judgements of 1616 and 1633. Finally, Dogmatic Vatican Council I taught that ‘the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8).’
Now whatever the above passage in Providentissimus Deus refers to, it certainly cannot be made include the revelation of a geocentric world, a matter very much in keeping with the Church’s reason to proscribe false philosophy. The only reason to protect such knowledge – as the Church did in 1616 - is so that the truth can be used as a subordinate means to salvation.
Where the passage goes on to correctly state some (‘each’) of the Fathers may have interpreted the Scriptures differently ‘where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect;’ there is no doubt the Copernicans began to see the possibilities of using this paragraph as an endorsement of that U-turn on the geocentric interpretation. Surely the first vision of these words was applied to the terms ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ in a heliocentric solar system. We cannot think of other example in the history of the conflict between faith and science and that could be applied here. And this is exactly what happened. Having literally conned their way out of the 1616 decree from 1741 to 1835, the Copernicans had no compunction in abusing this encyclical to support their previous misuses. Confirmation of this exploitation can be found anywhere and everywhere they spin their stories. Here are a few examples spread over the last century:

‘Similarly, “the sun stood still,” like our “the sun rises,” is a popular method of speaking, and involves the fact that in some way or another – and various ways have been suggested – God Almighty did prolong the hours of light in the case of Joshua; certainly does not necessarily involve inferences which churchmen of the time of Galileo unwisely read into the statement. They, as we have seen, were men of their own time and not in front of it, and they fell into the errors natural to what figured in those days of science. But we should be careful to make use of the better guidance which we have obtained in such utterances as the “Providentissimus Deus” and avoid the mistakes which we can see our predecessors have made and which, indeed, it would have been exceedingly difficult for them to have avoided.’ ----Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, 1920, p.81.

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture, will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’--- James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351

‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’ ---M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.264.

‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’ --- E.C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931

‘On the other hand Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’ --- J.T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.

‘To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time to guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants.’ ---Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013.

‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy.’ ----Catholics United for the Faith - Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded to help the faithful learn what the Catholic Church teaches.

Now you can argue all the Rheticus and Baronius ‘quips’ one can invent, but the fact remains that the Fathers, Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII did confirm the geocentric reading by way of an ‘unrevisable’ decree.

‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’---- Vatican Observatory website 2013.

Finally we come to the most poignant misuse of them all, a reference in Pope John Paul II’s 1992 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when the conclusions of the pontifical commission on the Galileo case were announced.

‘A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: “Truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself.’ --- Pope John Paul II.

‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’ ----A. Crombie: ‘From Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, p. 225).

We see then how the first papal encyclical of scriptural interpretation was hijacked by the Earthmovers. The purpose of the encyclical was mainly to protect Scripture from attempts ‘to vilify its contents’ by the misuse of physical science, an impossible task given the 1741-1835 denial of the unanimous geocentric interpretation of the Fathers. With a brand new commandment of the Church confirmed; ‘the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes,’ this letter had no chance to stem the tide of scriptural modernism in the Catholic Church. The 1890s were times when the Galileo case was being milked for all it was worth by the evolutionists who necessarily embraced the long ages of the uniformitarians. In his book Retrying Galileo, Finocchiaro recalls a dispute between Britain’s St. George Jackson Mivart, a convert to Catholicism who was suggesting science showed the evolution of humans. An Irish priest, Fr Murphy, was outraged at this ‘heresy’ saying the special creation of the human species was an article of Catholic faith. Mivart gave the standard reply in 1885, arguing ‘that Galileo’s trial showed that the Church was fallible in scientific matters, and so modern Catholics had complete freedom in scientific inquiry; but he argued that the Church’s error on Copernicanism was a providential one, and so took his conclusion to be a positive lesson rather than a criticism of the Church.’ Echoes of John Henry Newman here above, yes? Mivart was later excommunicated whereas Newman made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.

As a fascinating postscript to Providentissimus Deus is the story of the finding of the long lost trial docuмents of Giordano Bruno in the year 1886. Having earlier granted access to the Galileo archives, Pope Leo XIII refused scholars access to the Bruno docuмents. The Pope also strenuously opposed the building of a statue to Bruno in Rome proposed by the Italian government and an international committee of scholars. In the meantime, in 1887, a marble column to Galileo was built and erected on Rome near the Villa Medici. This was followed in 1889 when the statue of Bruno was erected in the Campo dei Fiori, a square in Rome where the unrepentant heretic Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600. Never remembered for his many heresies but only for his heliocentrism and ‘foresight’ into modern cosmology, Bruno joined Galileo in the sacred city of Rome as a permanent reminder to the world of the supposed and accepted injustice, ignorance and errors of Catholicism.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #489 on:** October 10, 2014, 01:47:04 PM »

Quote from: THE EARTHMOVERS

For Bacon the relationship between science and spirituality was clear - Through science, man would be restored to the state of grace which he had enjoyed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, to the “sovereignty and power” . . . which he had hid in his first state of creation. According to Bacon, not only would science restore man to his rightful dominion over the Earth, it would also create the perfect moral Christian society. - - - Katy Redmond: Science and Spirituality: Complimentary or Contradictory, a prize winning essay that appeared in Resurgence Magazine, Oct, 2003.

Ashmole became the friend and acquaintance of astrologers, mathematicians, physicians and other individuals who were advancing their knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature and science, as Francis Bacon’s redefined Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ required them to. - - - Knight & Lomas, the Hiram Key, pp.343 and 346.

Antichrist proposes that the correct understanding of the relationship between material science and spirituality - this science understood to be the advance of knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature - has the agency power to restore man to the state of grace he had before the Fall.

Consider that the stated objective - ostensibly spiritual - is to return to the paradise of pleasure, and not the grace of Redemption; and that the means for attaining it is no more than natural knowledge of the properties of crass matter. As with all satanic inversions, and especially the inversion called evolution, matter is invoked to act upon, vivify, and even create spirit.

Nay rather, the real objective is to absolutely annihilate Christ; while the real mechanism is the dog returning to its vomit and the pig returning to its wallowing in the mire - aka the Apostasy of the Gentiles.
[/font][/size]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #490 on:** October 10, 2014, 02:20:56 PM »

Quote from: THE EARTHMOVERS

The ‘Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ,’ as we have seen was recognition of Galileo’s heliocentrism. But isn’t Bacon always portrayed as a geocentrist?

Reminder: What then was the ritual for Bacon’s Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Among other things there is a required session of prepared questions and answers:

Q. “Where were you made a Mason?”
A. “In the body of a Lodge, just perfect and regular.”
Q. “And when?”
A. “When the sun was at its meridian.”
Q. “As in this country Freemasons’ Lodges are usually held and candidates initiated at night, how do you reconcile that which at first sight appears a paradox?”
A. “The sun being a fixed body and the earth continually revolving about the same on its own axis, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ being a universal science, diffused throughout the whole of the inhabited globe, it necessarily follows that the sun must always be at its meridian with respect to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.”
Q. “What is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?”
A. A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, illustrated by symbols.

A few days ago a friend sent me this article from Chiesa Viva:

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Pallio_1_e_2__BXVI__en.pdf

The article goes into excruciating detail in explaining the satanic symbolism in BXVI's pallium, coat of arms, and two of his mitres. I am posting the article here in order to bolster the proposition that heliocentrism has nothing to do with experimental material science, but is, rather, a tenet of satanism.

The true essence of the heresy of heliocentrism is, I think, perfectly demonstrated by the descriptions and explanations provided in this article. As the hellish ritual above shows, this heresy acts as the first principle of a belief system veiled (hidden; occult; secret; esoteric) in allegory (ambiguity; delusion; deceit) and presented in symbols.

Heliocentric satanism is a cult of unreality or anti-reality, that raises quantitative extension (an accidental form) above all created substances. The worm and the cockroach - individuals belonging to two classes of substance or kind and actuated by their respective substantial forms - are higher in being, in nobility, and in perfection than quantity as such, which can never subsist in itself.

Though heliocentrism purports to be a fact of material, observable reality, it is nothing more than a highly ritualized, highly symbolized algorithm belonging entirely to the realm of abstract cogitation.

The novus ordo sect fanatically propagates and defends heliocentrism and its choirboy, Galileo, not because it is defending a true scientific discovery, but precisely because it is a rabid modernist/satanist/pythagorianist cult.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #491 on:** October 10, 2014, 02:32:32 PM »

The movie The Principle premiers in just a few more days: October 24th: Marcus Theatre, Addison Illinois: 7:00 showing.

Sungenis gave a most excellent interview explaining in very understandable terms the scientific data that will be presented in the film:

http://www.isoc.ws/

In this interview, he remarks that production on the film had come to a close and a release date was chosen; however the data from the returning Planck probe became available, which data absolutely had to be included in the film, which caused them to have to go back into production.

Now Who, shall we suppose, arranged for such an auspicious circuмstance?

Almighty God timed things so that the energetic work of His bitterest enemies could be utilized to make this film even better.

Laudate Dominum omnes gentes; laudate eum omnes populi. Quoniam confirmata est super nos misericordia eius. Et veritas Domini manet in aeternum.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #492 on:** October 10, 2014, 02:41:54 PM »

Quote from: THE EARTHMOVERS

History shows the development of science advanced during the High Middle Ages, when the fundamental beliefs were those of Christian wisdom.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #493 on:** October 10, 2014, 03:22:17 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: THE EARTHMOVERS
For Bacon the relationship between science and spirituality was clear - Through science, man would be restored to the state of grace which he had enjoyed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, to the “sovereignty and power” . . . which he had hid in his first state of creation. According to Bacon, not only would science restore man to his rightful dominion over the Earth, it would also create the perfect moral Christian society. - - - Katy Redmond: Science and Spirituality: Complimentary or Contradictory, a prize winning essay that appeared in Resurgence Magazine, Oct, 2003.

Ashmole became the friend and acquaintance of astrologers, mathematicians, physicians and other individuals who were advancing their knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature and science, as Francis Bacon’s redefined Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ required them to. - - - Knight & Lomas, the Hiram Key, pp.343 and 346.

Antichrist proposes that the correct understanding of the relationship between material science and spirituality - this science understood to be the advance of knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature - has the agency power to restore man to the state of grace he had before the Fall.

Consider that the stated objective - ostensibly spiritual - is to return to the paradise of pleasure, and not the grace of Redemption; and that the means for attaining it is no more than natural knowledge of the properties of crass matter. As with all satanic inversions, and especially the inversion called evolution, matter is invoked to act upon, vivify, and even create spirit.

Nay rather, the real objective is to absolutely annihilate Christ; while the real mechanism is the dog returning to its vomit and the pig returning to its wallowing in the mire - aka the Apostasy of the Gentiles.
[/font][/size]

It is important to note that satanists would have their members uphold and assent to a radical contradiction, namely BOTH that a) they are in possession of true and deep 'supernatural' (not human) and 'spiritual' (otherworldly) mysteries; AND b) that natural knowledge of the secrets of nature (matter) is the transforming gnosis, the only true, real, and necessary knowledge for man.

This contradiction entirely violates the true definitions of both natural knowledge and mystery; for as the First Vatican Council teaches:

1. There is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils

Antichrist cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim to be a mystery cult that possesses knowledge revealed through a means other than human reason, and that simultaneously teaches that the highest state of perfection or actualization that man can reach is obtainable only through the use of human reason. No cult can rightly claim to possess knowledge of mysteries when it denies the existence of realities not penetrable by the reason.

Unless, of course, it leaves off with veils and deceptions and makes clear what is actually happening. The only source of extra-human revelation available to satanists is the demonic. And this body of information - wholly unreliable due to the malice of its source - is not supernatural. The demons possess what they know through their created nature, and they pass it on to man by natural means, and certainly not by means of supernatural grace:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.

The only realities correctly termed 'supernatural' have the Blessed Trinity for their Source.

One of the greatest distinctions between Christianity and paganism is that the divinely revealed and truly supernatural Mysteries of the Catholic Faith DO NOT violate Reason; whereas the false tenets of satanism, obtained through wholly natural means, corrupt and destroy the operation of the intellectual faculty by the systematic programming of innately violating contradictions, to which initiates are forcibly induced to give assent, to their great harm.

Wherefore what is antichrist but the false religion of enshrined, ritualized contradiction?

cassini · « **Reply #494 on:** October 16, 2014, 12:03:52 PM »

Chapter Thirty-Six
1905:
Albert to
The Rescue

Albert Einstein

‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M&M test results that could not find evidence for a 30kms/s movement]. Either the earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’ ----Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.