Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

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).

58:44

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.

1:00:46

Birkeland, Alfvén ... I am a Swede and can spot a mistake in pronunciation, bear with this geek hereon:

BEERR-kay-lund
ull-VAYN

Rydberg:

Ryewd-bair-rry (approx)

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.

Right?

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.

Note:

* 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
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/09/new-debate-with-rick-delano-and-robert.html

Continuing Previous

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

34:28 Sir Isaac Newton indeed wrote on Daniel and Revelation.

As said, he was an Arian. It seems he carried some ire against the Council of Nice, (or of Nicaea, with a more Classical form), since it was Roman. And he was very anti-Catholic. Probably he carried the Reformers' ire against Papal Rome to the point of both misreading history and prophesy to demonise it and becoming an Arian as a consequence thereof.

39:40 I suppose the extreme magnitudes will involve astronomical estimates of distances of stars etc.

Here are some guys who heckled me so intensely - some of them together and some not on the discussion here - I had to leave the group, and first one gives an answer to my complaint which is somewhat of a give-away:

HGL's F.B. writings : At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/at-leaving-group-creationism-discussion.html

Here is one guy who was nearly civil, but had a slow comprehension on one issue, or two:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/08/can-someone-help-bewildered-man-out.html

One of them being that angels push stars and planets about, and here is part of what Riccioli - a Jesuit astronomer - had to say on the matter:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

And this has an obvious implication about non-necessity of taking parallax as parallax, possibility of taking so called parallax as proper movements induced by angels dancing in time with the Sun. And therefore not showing any clear indication of distance at all (it could be very much smaller than the distance along zodiak covered by the Sun at six months distance). And that means the universe could be vastly smaller than thought. Just as certain observations about unreliability of dating methods means it can be lots younger than thought outside Creationist community.

Million, billion, trillion. Two systems around, US and French (both used in UK, I think).

Million = 10⁶
Billion = 10⁹
Trillion = 10¹²

OR

Million = 10⁶ Milliard = 10⁹
Billion = 10¹² Billiard = 10¹⁵ (word also means Snooker, I know)
Trillion = 10¹⁸

Actually Snooker is Billard - a derivative of Bille, marble. But it is pronounced nearly as Billiard.

44:32 Nearest star 4.5 lightyears (I had recalled 4 lightyears) away.

This depends on considering Earth rather than that star as changing position.

And its being the size of the sun depends on two kinds of observation:

• direct observation of apparent size (or as direct as compensating for Airy effect allows);
  
  
• supposed indirect obervation of distance: which depends on Earth rather than star changing positions between June and December. Despite us seeing the contrary.

So, stellar sizes are a moot point to Geocentrics.

45:01

According to Heliocentrics (or those of them who do not interpret Negative Parallax as positive parallax but less of it than medium parallax which is if so wrongly registered as zero parallax), indeed the stars start appearing four and a half miles outside the three and a half foot radius of Pluto.

IF you take proper account of Negative parallax (which Heliocentrics usually do not do), and are still Heliocentric, the -0.9 arcseconds parallax would really be +x parallax. The zero parallax would be x + 0.9 arcseconds parallax. The alpha Centauri parallax would be x + 1.66 arcseconds parallax, thus perhaps half the distance you cited or even nearer.

IF on the other hand all supposed parallax (negative and positive) is actually proper movements of stars, if angels are moving them about (the Classical theory of Celestial Movements), the only indication for how near the nearest star can be (at least in direction of Pluto/Kuiper Belt) is beyond Pluto and Kuiper Belt.

All fixed stars could be between "two and three metres away from the centre" - which would be Earth, "an inch away" from the centre of Solar System, inside which Earth is, but of which Earth is not.

46:41

Universe being finite was a XX^th C. discovery?

It was on the contrary a commonplace before Kant and some other guy (who considered universe was a disc of finite thickness, but infinite radius).

And since it was a commonplace, there was a reason to attack it.

Now, to Kant the Universe having a beginning was "a paradox". His "reason" was against the revelation, and he concluded in favour of a double standard of truth. A beginning and creator being a moral postulate, but a non-beginning and non-ending being more in tune with observations and rational considerations of them.

So, between Sun and alpha Centauri, the gravity is negligible? Even negligibles add up to something if there is an eternity for them to do so. Therefore, I would analyse Kant's rejection of Universe having no boundaries as partly an attempt to expose each star to opposing gravities from other stars.

Partly it was probably simply a difficulty in visualisation.

But Universe being Finite was a commonplace with Geocentrics and pre-Newtonians.

Before 49:18

Nucleus volume to atomic volume ration 10¹⁵.

"Mostly empty space".

Two caveats:

• a) Nobody has seen a nucleus. Even atoms can only be seen as bulbs in electronic microscopy (using electron rays that have no wave width, as one supposes).
  
  
• b) Is the space between nucleus and electron shells really empty? Or is it for instance full of aether, a continuous rather than a particle based matter?
  
  How come empty space can transmit forces between masses and charges?
  
  Is lightness absence of nucleus matter or presence of aether?
  
  Are the qualities considered as "subjective" ones by modern science situated in the aether?

I am not buying for undisputable fact that we are mostly empty space along with all around us. That is one model and I do not think the other options have been rejected for failing a real test.

"It seems very solid, but it is an illusion. A very effective illusion. We are the victims of an electrical simulation, a digital simulation." 49:18

God is truthful.

Your conclusion depends on atomic models to be correct (though noone has seen a nucleus) and complete (as if aether were disproven). And it contradicts God's truthfulness.

Note, even if what was the solid barrier was really more electric forces than solid nuclei, it would still be solid as per the fact it was often impenetrable. That would not be an illusion. But even so, could electric forces really exist so far outside nuclei while being suspended on no aether?

A Heliocentric might have to grant it as per Michelson Morley. To Geocentrics another interpretation of Michelson Morley is open. And if I didn't already mention I have that one from Robert Sungenis, I take the opportunity to do so now.

50:25 Quantum Theory, three stages:

• Atomistic aspect of Epicurus (insofar as it means atomistic approach to visible world rather than negation of the invisible world, the latter also being an Epicurean tenet, but irrelevant)
  
  
• St Isidor of Sevilla promotes it as one valid or probably valid concept (obviously when it comes to the material world, a Catholic Bishop is not denying the spiritual one)
  
  
• Niels Bohr.

Another question is whether the atomistic quantum theory is really true or not.

If you cut a length of 1 cm by 10^-33 (was it?) in half, instead of getting two halves, it looses locality.

With such smallness, it would perhaps be dubious and even highly so, if the experiment has ever been made. What kind of knife would you use to cut? What kind of pincers would you use so the "lost locality" is not simply lost pieces?

50:54 "there is a smallness beyond which we cannot reduce, and we discover we are in a digital simulation"

The parallel with pixels is obvious. In any picture, you can chose how many pixels it has and whatever your choice, say 300 pixels in width, you cannot squeeze detail for 301 pixels in width anywhere.

There are two problems with such a solution:

• 1) have we really validly discovered that smallness or is it a problem with measuring apparatus as to smaller smallnesses?
  
  
• 2) if our reality is indeed quantic, like pixels, how does this make our reality a simulation, unless you also postulate that the real world despite this must have an Aristotelic Continuum?

I would consider two solutions more probable than your conclusion.

• A) Either God created the real world in which we do live (though it gets more real above the stars) as an Aristotelic Continuum and the Planck length reflects a limit in our measuring apparatus, which is different from the world as such being pixellated.
  
  
• B) Or God actually did create the real world, at least the material one, in quanta, and this as such is not an indication of its being unreal or a simulation.

Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue

1) Challenging Chuck Missler on Geocentrism Issue, 2) Continuing Previous, 3) Chuck Missler starts making sense on an electrical issue

The Myths of Science - Challenging the Myths of Astronomy - Chuck Missler in The Electric Universe
J.W. Blankenship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA

Raising my hand at 6:48 (metaphorically). I was an amateur astronomer at age 8.

7:34 "they talked about the Flat Earth which they had no excuse ..."

Chuck Missler, is YOUR idea of Medieval Learning based on Washington Irving's highly misinformed novel about Christopher Columbus?

7:47 "everything revolved around the Sun" - you mean the Earth, right?

Perhaps God is paying you back because you have been praying for me to make ridiculous miswordings?

If you haven't, someone has.

7:54 [Ptolemy] "was eclipsed of course by Copernicus with his" [Heliocentric theory].

OK, if you really mean what you say, Geocentrism (and specifically Ptolemy's version, I would not go that far) is sunlight and Heliocentrism (or at least Copernicus' version) is Lunar induced Darkness?

Thank you, if you really mean that. But probably you do not, alas.

There is no 4th orthogonal situation.

Saint Augustine confirms it from Theology's side, God created three dimensions to hint at the Blessed Trinity.

Jews who have intellectualised more dimensions than three have mixed dimensions properly speaking with categories. Time is another category than space (or place) with its three dimensions. They have obviously called unnecessarily many concepts dimensions in order to get away from the hint from the Creator He is one God in three Persons.

8:46 Aether, you mentioned Michelson Morley refuting its existence.

You forget that Michelson Morley has an alternative interpretation: Geostasis, Earth not moving.

12:46 Wonder how many have been encouraged to believe even such a thing as Heliocentrism because of Swedenborg's seances?

He's a countryman of mine btw. And before anyone concludes I get my ideas same way he got his, no, I read St Thomas Aquinas - as if he were relevant today. He is.

20:04 Gravitons were predicted by Einstein, but never actually observed.

What about photons? If we agree light is a physical phenomenon, there are two theories that are possible: photons, which have never been actually observed and - aether. With Geostatic interpretation of Michelson Morley, aether in which light is a wavemovement (just as sound is/is related to* in matter: gas, liquid or solid), becomes and option.

21:20 or just before.

Dark matter necessary to explain why such and such a galaxy holds together? Since gravity wouldn't suffice otherwise?

And you to conclude "well maybe sth other than gravity is involved here?"

Indeed! The wisest word you said so far, I would say!

Well, Geocentrism also seems to be true until you say that gravity cannot explain a Geocentric solar system according to Tycho Brahe's model.

Maybe sth other than gravity is invoved here. Like angels moving planets around sun itself moved by an angel around Earth. And all of it moved westward each day by God turning the aether around.

Not saying this due to any interviews with men on Saturn, me no Swedenborg, only a Swede. Saying this because it makes sense. Better sense than dark matter and better sense than Heliocentrism. Also read it in St Thomas Aquinas.

24:44 I disagree with a theory never being totally proven, because I disagree with Popper's definition of the method.

State that "everything everywhere is every day only half as big as it was the day before, and every natural law and force and mass is adpated so it evens out".

That can go on defying being disproven forever. So can solipsism. The problem is they are absurd and have no positive shred of evidence for either one of them.

Geocentrism is not absurd (except to one brainwashed in the modern theories and told all arguments for them and none for Geocentrism) and there is a definite though provisory evidence for it: sense evidence.

If one agrees there is a God and there are angels, Geocentrism can go on being disproven on the physical ground. Also parallax is not necessarily such.

If you look for optical evidence to challenge geocentrism it would be sth like "confirm distances gathered from parallax by observing the parallax on Mars." One discrepancy heliocentrism fails. No discrepancies after many tries, geocentrism might not be disproven but starts looking a bit fishy. No tries have so far been made as far as we know.

Or do the space missions to outside solar system show the apparent zig zag that Heliocentrism would predict if Earth was moving in and out of Origo of the trajectories?

Hard to find out actually.

One man gave me a source, I tried to look it up, it was not verified and not even answered at my request for confirmation.

25:32 Shannon's non-verifiable statement is not meaningless. It is absurd, but not meaningless.

Spirit not being matter cannot be verified apart from the obvious arguments for it. Like spirit has as positive definition conscience and will, we know that we are both that and body and we know there are bodies that show no conscience or will, ergo, spirit is in us conjoined with body somehow, but is not body as such. Therefore, as bodies are capable of not being spirit, spirits are capable of not being body. APART FROM this obvious argument there is no verification of this, except spirits moving bodies without a human body intervening, an occurrence which is rare and can be denied if you have not witnessed it.

So, Shannon's law would be a subreptitious attack on things spiritual.

Not meaning it applies to them properly understood.

Now, IF you admit there is spirit, THEN there is no way to verify heliocentrism from astrophysical considerations, apart from optic ones. That would make Shannon's law call Heliocentrism meaningless. BUT we know it has a meaning because we are aware of it. So, Heliocentrism being absurd is better terminology than Heliocentrism being meaningless.

27:59 Deductive and Mathematical

1) Deductive logic is exactly the same logic you need to use when falsifying anything.

Armstrong and Butler go into a room, shut the doors, you hear some very queer sounds. Butler comes out, has no blood on his hands or clothes or anything, no shot was heard, he points inside and you see Armstrong lying there in gore splattered all over the place.

Hypothesis: Butler did it.

Falsification: If Butler had done it, it would have been at short range since there was no shot, and killing a man at short range, by cutting up his stomach will certainly splatter on oneself. BUT Butler is clean, SO Butler didn't do it.

This is a modus tollens (If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A.) and Modus Tollens is a method of deduction. If it doesn't work for the universe, why would it work for the violent death of Armstrong.

2) Mathematics is not just a man made model. Some of it is, as when test results are regularly approximated (and very off results perhaps ignored) to make it look neater.

But basic mathematics as such, things like whole numbers or pi, are not man made. They are there even without our doing.

33:48

1) Planets in elliptical orbits, with the Sun at one of the foci.

Obviously, as Riccioli pointed out, that could be excepting the planet Sun, which also has an elliptical orbit, with a stationary Earth at one of its foci.

2) Sun's radius vector sweeps equal areas in equal times.

As obviously for the planet Sun, that would be Earth's radius vector.

3) Square of periods as cubes of mean distances.

Also quite possible in Geocentric terms.

34:15 Isaac Newton** was hardly a more serious Christian than Swedenborg (not a fan of either, btw). Isaac was an Arian, did not believe Divinity of Christ, and an Anticatholic. He was also a soothsayer - astrologer at least, but I think he dabbled in other things too.

His optics are one thing, but as to Classical Mechanics, in its relevance for the question, well, the thing is the standard theory then was that angels were moving the celestial bodies about (since 1277 when the theory celestial bodies had souls of angelic spirit type was forbidden by Tempier in Paris and much abandoned). So, he gave an alternative explanation. But he did nothing to refute that one.

_____________

* Marin Mersenne, a Catholic friar, was wisely not deciding on whether sound was the wave movement which gave a subjective by product of a hearable quality, or whether sound actually objectively was a hearable quality accompanied by the wave movements. He's the father of the science of acoustics, for those that do not know.

** Mathematics, certain things man made ... sure. Differential and integral calculus is man made.