52:43 Eph. 3:18 "heighth and depth" may simply be opposite directions of one dimension? No?
Here is at least what Haydock [i e Bishop Witham cited in Father Haydock's comment:] has to say:
Ver. 18. What is the breadth, &c. It is not expressed to what must be referred these metaphorical words of breadth, length, &c. Some expound them of the charity which in our hearts we ought to have for one another; others, of the love which Christ shewed towards mankind, in coming to redeem all. (Witham)
What, &c. This thought seems borrowed from Job xi: "Peradventure thou wilt comprehend the steps of God, and wilt find out the Almighty perfectly." The inspired writer then shews us how the Almighty is incomprehensible; for, says he, "God is higher than the heavens; and what wilt thou do? he is deeper than hell; and how wilt thou know? The measure of him is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." The apostle, alluding to these words, prays that the Ephesians may have faith and charity sufficient to enable them to comprehend all that is comprehensible of God; as St. Dionysius explains it. But we are not hence to conclude, that there exists such a thing as dimension or size with regard to God, for he is a pure Spirit: but these expressions are merely metaphorical. For by breadth we are to understand his virtue and wisdom, which extend over all his creatures: (Ecclesiasticus i.) "he poured out wisdom upon all his works." By length is meant his eternal duration: (Psalm ci.) "but thou, O Lord, remainest for ever." By height we are taught the infinite superiority of his nature over ours: (Psalm cxii.) "The Lord is high above all nations." And by depth we are shewn the incomprehensibility of his wisdom: (Ecclesiastes) "Wisdom is a great depth; who shall find it out?" Hence it appears that the end of faith and charity is, that we may arrive at a perfect faith; which may know, as far as it is intelligible, the greatness of his wisdom, his eternal duration, &c. (St. Thomas Aquinas, in Eph.)
Ver. 19. That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God; i.e. that as God is full of love and charity for all, so may you in an inferior degree, according as you are capable, be filled with charity. (Witham)
55:48 Astronomers make hypotheses that are not empirically based.
You can say that again!
Riccioli stated four theories as to why heavenly bodies move:
- inherent causation of inanimate type (a bit like downward heading for stones or upward heading for flames)
- they are living beings, have either rational souls, like we (but far more longlived) or at least vegetative and animal souls
- they are each and every one of them moved directly by God, without any interpediate causation
- they are moved by angels.
Now, he settled for the fourth theory, but before doing so, he said the matter was not empirically solvable.
Astronomers today settle for a slight variant of first theory - to the total exclusion of other theories, as if it were empirically solved, as if any other one was against Occam's Razor .... even if it means distorting the real empirical data (inverting the movements that make up day and night, winter and summer, into Earth moving, inverting the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri's observed motion into Earth moving) and inventing lots of auxiliary hypotheses for each, even to the point of flagrantly violating Occam's Razor (you mentioned Dark Matter and Dark Energy yourself).
Where they have nights that go for months is a bit further north than where auroras begin in Sweden and Norway.
I have been to Luleå and Gellivare in Sweden. Gellivare has a day that is a month around summer solstice and a night that is a month around winter solstice. Luleå has two hours real day at Christmas and two hours real night at St John's. Auroras go down even further south.
But they are around spring and autumn.
Nights being cold is however not exaggerated. And Birkeland might have gone further north in order to spot more of them.
There is a Swedish saying:
Det fins ingenting som heter fel väder, bara fel kläder.
Nothing like wrong weather, only wrong clothing.
Plus, he is certain to have had a hut or a tent.
Plus the best use Swedes make of strong liquor is like this:
- put a penny in a cup
- add hot coffee until it cannot be seen
- add liquor until it can be seen again
- add coffee to the top.
Once you know the cup and the levels, you don't need the penny any more.
Other good things to use are hot rosehip soup or hot blueberry soup.
And as Norwegians and Swedes are close, culturally, you bet Birkeland used part of this wisdom.
Birkeland, Alfvén ... I am a Swede and can spot a mistake in pronunciation, bear with this geek hereon:
Though that would rather be Rudberg, which is another Swedish name.
Ryd has the vowel of French u and German ü. Add a yod as offglide when long. Swedish long u starts nearly same, but has rather a waw offglide.
1:11:38 and previous say ten minutes.
It starts getting interesting.
You know Sungenis' theory of what keeps the Earth in its place, centre of Universe?
ALL mass in the Universe rotates around one spot which becomes gravitational centre, in which God put Earth, from which it cannot escape.
[Note, I misinterpreted this statement as meaning "all the mass of the stars and associated exo-planets, plus the masses of solar system", but I get informed that it involves matter not so accounted for, since that would be needed to make gravity work even under conventional theories.]
Now, he accepts conventional distances and sizes. One problem is that even so - I think you may have made the point about gravitation earlier - the gravitational pull from stars might really be too small to make a difference.
[From stars ... see above.]
Now, as of lately, I do not accept conventional distances and sizes. Supposing the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri are an angel dancing with it (as per fourth theory of Riccioli) or as it (as per his second, rejected one, which was however accepted by St Jerome), alpha Centauri could be as close as a light day away.
And so on for all the other stars.
Would this make Sungenis' solution for Earth staying in place more plausible?
Not quite sure. Perhaps rather not. Gravitation would increase by the square as distances reduced, but as apparent size is an empiric given fact, and it relates to distance, this would, as I seem to comprehend, mean that the volume of alpha Centauri (and with it gravitation) would be decreasing by the cube as distance shortened.
However, if Earth was instead kept in place electrically? That or simple decree of God would be solutions.*
1:18:32 (Psalm "19" cited)
The Sun seems to be an actor.
Whether the Sun is an organism with a very long lifespan or an angel is holding it, as Riccioli and St Thomas prefer, the Sun seems to be acting.
1:19:00 (Where Sun is supposed to move through galaxy shown on map)
You are aware that the map of the galaxy is not an empirical map, but a reconstruction?
I think it makes more sense that the Sun actually circles around Earth each day and around Zodiak each year.
1:20:30 The observation on diameters and distances of Sun and Moon are the same on a Geocentric view. No disagreement there.
Before 1:27:04 - I had an alternative reading of Day 2.
Electrolysis happens and waters above firmament are hydrogen and hydrogen plasma, firmament is oxygen rich atmosphere.
In my theory, Sun and stars get their hydrogen from the waters above the firmament.
Had - I haven't given it up, btw.
* Sungenis' theory involving dark matter as much as conventional ones, might be a reason for scepticism - against both. Here is a statement by our common friend and his longstanding associate Rick DeLano:
There is absolutely no basis upon which to accept any claim that "the gravitational pull from stars might really be too small to make a difference", since the stars make up far less than 5% of the mass required to explain observations even under conventional theories.
95.9% of the required mass to make gravity work under consensus cosmology assumptions is missing.
They have been looking for it for 70 years so far without success.
Perhaps a little plus for my theory. Celestial bodies move, moved by angels. Earth doesn't "hanged up upon nothing", i e having no angel to move it. Masses (in the non-sacred, Newtonian sense) do not rule those regions.
Except for the Lagrange points, perhaps ...?
The quote is taken from following thread, where Robert Sungenis proceeds to contradict Rick DeLano:
HGL's F.B. writings : New debate with Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis