The common thread as to why physics was turned upside down

Delighted to see someone who studied physics on the forum with his thinking cap on. A warm welcome @stateless3 I would appreciate your input on this:

The common thread as to why physics was turned upside down

It’s been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt by Simon Shack, that the Copernican/Heliocentric model is disprovable. But we currently live in a world where this is not accepted. And to speculate as to why that is, I could say the following. Reason and science is always the primary enemy of the aristocracy. Why? Because if reason is the ultimate authority as to what is true and false, then dogma cannot be. So in any aristocracy, it’s always of the highest priority to ensure that dogma rule over reason. But it has to be done in such a way that the people believe that the dogma is in fact reason. Dogma perceived as reasonable truth is the very essence of the aristocracy’s authority, and without it, they cannot rule. And to ensure this they stack more unreasonable dogma on top of the existing, so that it becomes unlikely that the people manage to see through all the deceptions. So if some dogmas fall, they can always rally up and protect the ones behind it. And I happen to think that the Heliocentric model is one of the core dogmas that others have been stacked upon in order to protect it and to create “lines of defense” to fall back on. And thus, the Heliocentric model has been (and is) very important to protect.

Moving on to physics, we have during the 20th century adapted a most peculiar view in this field. In everyday life, or the macrocosm as it is sometimes referred to, we accept the laws of logic and physics that have been discovered and confirmed throughout the ages. But in the so called microcosm, the laws of thought and logic (Law of thought - Wikipedia) do not apply anymore, since we’ve allegedly discovered that a photon - a microscopic particle, can be at two places at once, change it’s behavior depending on the expectations of the observer, and even change the flow of time itself. And of course, if this is what can be concluded from proper and relevant experiments and observations, then this should and must be accepted. But when examining this, we can find that other more reasonable explanations do in fact exist. According to the scientific method a proper scientific experiment needs to be controlled. Meaning that it is carefully examined and ruled out that anything besides what is deliberately altered in the experiment can affect its outcome. But it seems this has not been done regarding the modified double slit experiment that forms the very foundation for Quantum Mechanics. Please read this short article to understand what the problem is with the current interpretation of this experiment:

And if this is the case - that the so called photon detectors affect the behavior of the light, since they are not passive but emit electromagnetism, then undoubtedly, QM needs to be filed in the round archive (the trash bin). And light and other electromagnetism then go back to being nothing other than a wave propagation since that is what can be concluded by the (unmodified) double slit experiment and many other experiments. And the axioms of logic that have been valid since their conception by the old Greeks, can also apply in the microcosm. And now onto the common thread I promised.

In his historical book Simon exposes that the Michelson–Morley experiment did not in fact produce a null result, but a consistent result that confirms the suggested speed of Earth in his Tychos Model. Chapter 24: Dayton Miller - and the speed of Earth – Nextra The reason it is argued to be null, is because it is much too small to confirm the speed required for Earth to be orbiting the Sun (107000 kph or about 90x the speed of sound). And here I propose we have it ladies, gentlemen. If light and electromagnetism is a plain, dull and ordinary wave through an aether, that follows the common laws of reason and physics, then Heliocentrism is disproven by this experiment. And we can’t have that, can we!? So onwards with Einstein, Feynman and Quantum Mysticism! :slight_smile:

And another benefit to this course of action for the Nutwork/PowersThatBe, if it is indeed the case, is that physics and energy science will remain dead in their tracks until this problem in physics is discovered and sorted out. It’s also notable that the scientists that developed the electro science needed for our current power grids (Steinmetz, Heaviside et. al.) all did it using aether physics.


Hi Patrick, Simon, and everyone on here. All I can say is I wholeheartedly agree with you. Physics really went completely off the rails with the introduction of Relativity and then Quantum Physics. It was at this point that magic mathematics came to the forefront. The underlying assumption Feynman makes in chapter 37 of his Lecture on Physics series is that there is no ether because he has an absolute belief in Einstein’s magic relativity theory. Hence no consideration of the interaction of the light source with this medium is considered when in his ‘Gedanken’ experiment he imagines using a light source to detect which hole the electron is coming through. So rather than consider that the medium in which the experiment is being carried out may be affecting the observations, they immediately project this seemingly bizarre behavior onto the particle itself and start to believe that the electron itself has become self-aware. It’s quite amusing. Of course, Feynman can’t even resist in this chapter to introduce complex numbers into the equation, excuse the pun. I used to admire Feynman. As you probably know he gave a famous speech at Caltech where he tried to impress the importance of following the ‘scientific’ method on a bunch of freshers. This was his famous Cargo Cult Science speech. Let me just quote a bit here because it’s rather amusing when you consider he never once in his life actually applied this principle to his own work.
" But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backward. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: but other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
Did he know about Dayton Miller’s series of experiments? If not he should have and ignorance is no defense in law.
I believe the Royal Society was instituted with the sole purpose of deceiving the masses by propagating a false version of reality which the authorities could then control. As you said it is a control mechanism used by authority, whoever that authority may be at any particular time in history. By promoting ‘geniuses’ like Newton and in particular their application of advanced mathematics in the realm of the physical sciences they could and can literally make up anything they want and pass it off as real to the gullible. And as we have seen recently there are billions of very gullible people on this planet.
By the way, I gave up physics years ago. Looking back I now understand why. Deep down I must have sensed it was all voodoo. Anyway, it is clearly important to try and get real science out there though it will not be easy as many people are simply so brainwashed getting them to even look at this website is a challenge. However, we have to try.


Stateless, I tend to agree with your assesment:

I have done a bit of research into RS members and I have concluded the same as you. I would add however, that although Francis Bacon can be found at the heart of the inception of the Royal Society, he purportedly disagreed with the heliocentric hypothesis.

I would part slightly with your conclusion as to the purpose of the RS, deception yes, but with the express aim of reducing the Natural world down to a materialistic perspective for the sole purpose of exploiting everything for profit.

Now the deeper that I go into it, and Simon has touched on this I think, I find it more difficutlt to substantiate the common belief that the Church was ever opposed to the heliocentric model. I read this quote just today;

"The same thing applies to heliocentrism, which the most inspired seventeenth-century theologians accepted willingly. Cardinal de Berulle, in his Discours de l’Estat et des Grandeurs de Jesus (1622), wrote:

This new idea, little heeded in the science of the Stars, is useful and should be adapted to the science of salvation. For Jesus is the Sun, immovable and steadfast in its greatness, and moving all things. Jesus is like the Father and, seated at his right, is immobile like him. Jesus is the Sun of our Souls, from which they receive all grace, light and influence. And the Earth of our Hearts should be in unceasing motion towards him, in order to receive in all its parts and powers the favorable aspects and benign influences of this great Star.

  • Eros and Magic in the Renaissance, I. Culiano.

Actually, the closing chapters of the book go a long way to supporting your statement in a previous post concerning Copernicus, Bruno, et al. and it’s worth a read.

I find that the more I delve into Kepler the less scientific and the more religious he becomes. A couple of years ago I wrote this down and I think it’s apropos still.

“Was Kepler employed to rig the system to fit Jesus onto the Piscean era by changing the solar system to a helio-centric model? To make Christ into a solar god through the process of taking away Earth’s sacred position in the heavens? Bringing man’s true nature further down in to gross materialism. In other words, switching the previous (Pagan) solar gods out for Christ while disguising the fact that they were themselves simply renaming and installing a new solar god? And would this explain why Kepler was “at war” with Mars for five years and inevitably ended up falsifying Brahe’s data because he knew that it could be discovered by future astronomers to be a fraud. The discovery of the fraud of helio-centric solar system knocks out the foundation and validity of the Church.”


Yes Kevin, physics went completely bonkers after the breakthrough with electro science in the 19th century.

One thing I recently discovered is that Steinmetz who can be regarded as the father of electro science died “suddenly” in 1923.

But amazingly he had finished a book that very same year, where he threw his lifelong belief in the Aether theory overboard and declared that Einstein had made the greatest discovery ever. The name of the book is Four lectures on general relativity, if I remember correctly.
Edit, I almost remembered correctly :slight_smile:

And my suspicion is that the Nutwork had a talk with Steinmetz who was the biggest science celebrity in the early 20th century, and that he refused to endorse Einsteinian physics. So instead they did what they probably did to Tycho Brahe and on top of that published a false book in his name.

And as it seems, Tesla wasn’t really that important. He failed to achieve what ever he tried to with his Wardenclyffe tower and then was a broken man financially.

And with Steinmetz out of the way and with the control over education and media, they’ve been able to turn science completely upside down during the 20th century. And the bigger the lie, the better. Because then people will completely disregard their rational faculties in favour of aristocratic dogma.

The rockets creating thrust in space is my favorite. Never mind that physics don’t allow for a freely expanding gas to create work. Never mind that the workings of refrigerators, engines and airplanes, are mutually exclusive with the idea that rockets can create thrust in space. Never mind that all though it’s true that an action produces a reaction, there actually have to be an action, which isn’t the case with rockets in space. If we create a rocket equation and show space travel on TV, people will believe, and boy were they right. And if you don’t you’re just a crazy person that probably thinks that Earth is flat. And for the record, this was the magic that was the hardest to dispell for me. But when you do, the logic as to why rockets cannot work in space is so laughably simple.

And indeed Kevin, we need to try to get some actual science going. But fortunately some are already doing that. And the most important example I can come up with is Simon’s decade long work with the Tychos model, since it dispels the foundation of the mystic system we currently live in.

Another example I’ve recently found is this:

An ancient artefact has been examined and it’s concluded beyond reasonable doubt that it is something we cannot manufacture today. Which tells me that a prehistoric human civilization have been at the place we’re currently at, and that reason prevailed as it always does eventually. Even though that civilization didn’t and is sadly completely forgotten and unknown by the present. But my guess is that this will open the door to a completely new and more proper understanding of physics and the realm we live in, just as the Tychos model will. Ben of UnchartedX makes an analogy with the plate that allegedly was on board the Voyager space probe. I know that Voyager is BS by the Nutwork, but the analogy is fitting. This is a message sent to the future by an ancient human civilization that had a better grip on science than we currently have. So many thanks for that!


1 Like

Hi schoepffer;

You wrote: “To make Christ into a solar god through the process of taking away Earth’s sacred position in the heavens.”

It seems to be a persistent error to believe Aristotle or the Church placed Earth in the centre of the universe as some type of ‘throne’ superior to all. In their view, the centre, in which stood Earth, was the place of base matter: matter goes down; it is heavy, corruptible, the antithesis of what is perfect, pure. Up is the sky and the firmament, the heavens and the stars unchanging, to put it as they would have said; fire (the sun) is lighter, and therefore is up: it is placed in a higher position in the heavens.

Heliocentrism effectively thought ‘to bring Earth higher in the heavens,’ to elevate Earth to a higher, symbolic status, since it seeked to place Earth in the firmament. Church and scientists of the day principally rejected the heliocentric model on scientific objections (parallax and the relevant, unreasonable distances and size of stars it would imply), but also according to the above-mentioned religious or symbolic objections; these latter objections rested solidly, in Church debates, on the validity and soundness of the first type; there is no seemlingly irrational rejection of scientific progress by the religious and scientific authorities of the time.

To adopt the heliocentric model meant to turn the world upside down: the Sun is now at the centre of a world in which the centre is supposedly the place of corruption and baseness. Sun is the source of light, of knowledge, particularly according to the symbolic vision of the Humanists (‘the Age of Enlightenment’); Earth is now above in the heavens. I am not sure how to interpret this massive intellectual, or mythical, shift. It seems to be implying the idea that knowledge or truth comes from matter, or something of the like and appears to allude to vague Pythagorian beliefs.

There is an online quote from American philosopher E.A. Burtt (1892-1989) claiming one of the reasons Kepler adopted the sun-centered theory “was the exaltation and dignity it gave to the sun.” In support of his claim, Burtt quotes a fragment of a disputation that twenty-two year old Kepler argued at Tübingen in 1593:

“In the first place, lest perchance a blind man might deny it to you, of all the bodies in the universe the most excellent is the sun, whose whole essence is nothing else than the purest light, than which there is no greater star; which singly and alone is the producer, conserver, and warmer of all things; it is a fountain of light, rich in fruitful heat, most fair, limpid, and pure to the sight, the source of vision, portrayer of colours…”

(cited in E. A. Burrt )

Yes, there is most probably a certain level of mysticism in Copernicus’ adoption of the heliocentric model, though I also think he truly and honestly believed in its scientific rational, and perhaps the renown and prestige to be gained in espousing a revolutionary new idea that would turn out to be widely accepted was not absent in his belief. Systemic opposition to the Church in an age of violent criticism and overthrow of the legitimacy of Church authorities (1572 is the same year Tycho Brahe discovered his Stella Nova, which revolutionized the science of astronomy, and of the massacre of the Saint Bartholomew in Paris, the event which epitomizes the violence and savagery of the religious conflicts that ripped Europe apart in the 16th and 17th centuries) may also have contributed to the adoption and promotion of his ideas by a segment of the European elites of the time.

1 Like

Well, in essence this basically substantiates what I asked about Kepler’s motivations.

1 Like

Once again I am in full agreement. the rocket in a vacuum thing is something else. I think NASA is now claiming the Earth’s atmosphere actually extends beyond the moon as they realise more and more people are cottoning on to the BS.
Thanks for that link on Steinmetz. I’ve never really looked into his background but clearly someone that is barely heard of nowadays even in ‘alternative’ media, which should tell us something.
I haven’t really looked much into the Electric Universe theories of the universe much but what I have read does make a lot more sense than the current paradigm. That of course is an understatement. For sure the sun isn’t a fusion generator. Isn’t it funny how for decades they’ve been talking about fusion and what has come of it? Nothing.
Anyway, I need to look more into it when I get time.

1 Like

Hi Schoepffer. Let me get back to you on this. I’m a bit busy right now so may not reply immediately. By the way I didn’t know that Francis Bacon did not believe in the Heliocentric model. Have you got any links I could read up on that?

Hi State,

I cannot furnish you any links but I can provide a reference. There is a book entitled “Francis Bacon Essays and New Atlantis”, 1942 in the introduction by Gordon S. Haight, p. xiv;

Another part of the plan was the Novum Organum (The New Instrument), a method of inductive reasoning from carefully observed facts to supplant the deductive method of reasoning from abstraction and authority. The Novum Organum neglects the method of hypothesis, by which most discoveries are actually made; and Bacon himself ignored the important scientific observations of his age - for example, the astronomy of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, …

Now, please do not think I am any sort of Bacon adherent, I’m not. His association with RS and other dubious groups are enough reason for me to eye him with suspicion but I did find the above passage interesting enough to see if there were any veracity to it.

There are over fifty short essays in the book, some only a page or two long. I have not read all of them but if anyone ever wants the English Empire’s perspective on the world at large they can find it there. I find his writing to be exceedingly modern and if you replace thee and thou I doubt anyone could dectect he was writing in the 1500’s.

Actually, just now I have pulled up a link to Novum Organum and it’s been fifteen minutes of me reading that already and judging from the editorial “corrections” i.e. modern day standard theory refutations to Bacon’s treatise, I think I will start reading this as soon as I have the time.

Novus Organum Bacon

1 Like


As Stateless already said, thanks for the note on Steinmetz. I had no idea he had died suddenly and refuted his own work, go figure. I started reading one of his books, the one on Transients before I quickly realized it was above my paygrade.

I am extremely happy that we do not have to dance around the ‘space’ topic, rockets, satellites, etc. I knew Simon’s feelings on these subjects but his book steers clear of that arena and he uses NASA’s data from time to time.

1 Like

Hi Schoepffer, thanks for that. Your comments pretty well align with my thinking. Kepler was strongly into the old mystery schools and I suspect he had a role in the great man himself, Tycho Brahe.
From ‘The Ahrimanic Deception’ by Rudolph Steiner
“I once pointed out that the great Kepler, the successor of Copernicus, had a feeling that
his solar and planetary system was repeating, of course in a way appropriate to the fifth
post-Atlantean age, what had lived as the world picture behind the Egyptian priest
mysteries. Kepler himself expressed this in a certain sense very radically when he said
that he had borrowed the vessels of the ancient Egyptian teachers of wisdom in order to
carry them over into the new age.”
Surely it’s no coincidence he took on the role of understudy to Brahe and then completely sabotaged his work.
Rudolph Steiner (I’m not an anthroposophist) claims the return of Ahriman occurred in the middle of the 15th century just when Cosimo De Medici had the Hermetic texts translated from the Greek after the fall of Byzantium. I regard Steiner as an insider who may have been a whistleblower. In ‘The Ahrimanic Deception’ he casts shade on Copernicus and Galileo by implying their knowledge is superficial. Now he doesn’t outright refute heliocentrism but perhaps if you read between the lies he is giving us hints that the real truth is being hidden, which we know is the case.
He knew 'many of the Theosophists very well as he had been one of them. In Theosophy, which is heavily influenced by Hermeticism, Sirius plays a very significant role as it does in Freemasonry. You can trace links from the Theosophists to the founding of NASA without too much trouble This is pure speculation but I believe much of the secret knowledge these occult groups possess may well include the fact we are in a binary star system and Sirius is the twin of the sun. This knowledge was known by the civilizations that built the Pyramids and the other temples we find across the planet which we are no longer capable of replicating.
I believe Sirius plays a key role in the religion of our elite which is why I think Simon’s explanation of the 811000 year is not just idle fantasy. I think he’s probably hit on something quite earth-shattering here.
There’s a lot of speculation here of course.

1 Like

@stateless3 @schoepffer

Yes the Steinmetz story is interesting. I found out about his sudden death in a video. I’ll find it and post it here later.

Edit: Found the video. She talks about his sudden death at 27 minutes

And that can explain something that has puzzled me. Steinmetz kept a low profile as opposed to Tesla that allegedly called Einstein a beggar in a red robe, but he was definitely not a believer in his theories. So why did he suddenly switch in his last book?

As for electric universe, I think it should be taken with a grain of salt. The art of infamy is to have lies fighting each other, to quote Ezra Pound and electric universe go out of their way to enforce satellites and NASA. And as I said, and that you gentlemen fortunately see as well, NASAs claims as to how rockets create thrust in space are simply not physically possible. However I don’t see much of a problem with referring to their astronomical data since it is most likely correct.

As for how the Sun creates it’s energy my guess is as good as any, but I would speculate it has something to do with the Aether. It’s been observed that matter (hydrogen) can be created in a vacuum. Hydrogen From Space - The Aether 'Comes Alive' - Sepp Hasslberger
This could be Aether that is condensing into atoms/molecules that we can detect and a similar process could be going on in the Sun and also in the Earth, which would explain geothermal energy. The Stellar metamorphosis theory is mentioned in Simons book and I agree that Earth could be an old star.

1 Like

Hi Patrik, Ok if they are supporting NASA that really is a bad sign.

1 Like

Hi Patrik, have you got any reference where Steinmetz actually refutes SR/GR? I’ve come across an article written on July 29th 1922 which is critical of Steinmetz for writing a very robust defence of GR in a magazine called ‘Popular Radio’. So it would appear at least by July 1922, whether by coercion or not, he was a supporter of Relativity.

I have an excerpt where he explains why light is a wave through a medium. I’ll post it tomorrow. But I don’t think he explicitly criticized Einstein. As I said, he was low key as opposed to Tesla.

Do you have a link to that article? I’d be most interested in reading it.

There is much room for the discussion of the consequences of Copernicanism as just a few hours with The Tychos is enough to start a sort of swirling in the mind regarding the consequences of such a momentous mistake.

There will be whole books written on this subject in the years ahead but what comes to my mind over and over is the simple homily we all know … “as above, so below”. What we perceive as the model of the solar system becomes our political system here on Earth.

But Simon is working on the ‘what’ right now and doing a fine job and as a corollary we could say that political thought will only change upon wide adoption of The Tychos.


Well, if you are the Esotericist that it sounds like you are, you will enjoy the Culiano book that I mentioned previously. I won’t belabor the point here in this forum, but I would like to follow up off line if you like.

Full disclosure, I would not be on this forum if not for the Electric Universe Theory, or better described plasma physics.

The nuclear sun was the hardest one for me to let go of. I lke the plasma sun because the EU simply answers the question, “where does the enegy originate?” with, “Unknown.”

I detected around the turn of the millenium an outright swindle taking shape. When I was in school, blackholes were a theory, (80’s) Suddenly, movies come out and then it goes from theory to “fact”.

By then there was the internet and I stumbled upon Eric Lerner’s, “The Big Bang Never Happened”.
Then to the EU’s fledgling YT site. I made my wife watch the one about the Electric Sun, she thought I was crazy. So did I. :rofl:

I emailed Halton Arp shortly thereafrer and believe it or not about two months later he replied to me!

I would hesitate to hold it against them, their use of the NASA satellites and data, etc., it wasn’t until years later that I realized if it wasn’t for their unknowing promotion of such things that they would have been censored long ago.

Most of the things we see in the cosmos can be duplicated in the plasma physics lab and NASA doesn’t even pretend to uphold the ‘nuclear furnace’ theory of stars anymore. In fact they’ve scrubbed most of it. On the whole the EU folks are virulent NASA opponents, yet they somehow still manage to believe in space probes etc. I did too for a long while and I don’t think anyone here can honeslty say that they weren’t also among that crowd for a while themselves.

So no matter what torturous path any one of us has taken to arrive at a straight faced discussion of the Sun orbitting the Earth, I think it behooves us to remember that we’ve all gotten here by way of myriad paths and the ability to reexamine our own dogmas.

1 Like

Schoepffer and all,

I just thought I’d show some other sources talking about these themes:

Some passages in Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible by R. Blackwell point out how cosmology was/is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church…which is ironic given that alternative ideas such as Bruno’s were considered serious heresies that cost him. Cardinal Bellarmine didn’t advocate for the teaching of heliocentrism, however.

If the Mithraic cult, or other solar cults, were still alive and well in the 16th century, heliocentrism could have been considered a major threat to the Church; in this ‘alternate history’ view, the Church may have sided with Tycho Brahe, in order to defend against any cosmology that gave power to the sun/solar deities. But again we have to consider the “Enlightenment” movement as having an impact on teaching of dogma as well as secular sciences/humanities. Modernism was an issue in the Renaissance too, but it gained more acceptance and promotion from the 17th cent. onward.

It won’t be news to anyone to say the Church co-opted pagan practices throughout Europe, including Easter and Christmas. Christmas was first Yule/Jul that occurred on the Winter Solstice. Easter is also determined as being the Sunday following the first full moon on or after the Spring Equinox. If I’m not mistaken both were ancient holidays celebrated in northern Europe.

As for the Jesus/Sun(son) connection: there are dozens of Catholic Churches built on top of Roman Mithraic temples throughout Europe. Mithraea were underground temples, which I’m thinking the Church liked, given the earliest masses were celebrated underground in the crypts of martyrs. It is architecturally convenient to use an older sacred site, but this makes one wonder about the more recent destructions of Native American mounds and holy places; it could be that their culture was not convenient or useful to Colonialists, and that was reason for destruction. Many mounds are preserved in the US, but I understand that many more were destroyed and built on. Considering the monk Psellus recorded the writings of Proclus and neo-Platonists, as well as Manicheans, in the 11th century, it isn’t a stretch to suggest earlier Christians were actively studying the older pagan religions, the Chaldean oracles, mystery schools, etc.

When Christ is the “light” of the sun in the heliocentric innovation, this could also be seen as an inverse of the mystery/darkness of God the Father. The slow adaptation echoes the political/cultural catchphrase/code-word “dark to light.” The Tychos, which doesn’t require a specific theology, strangely echoes this sort of notion of an invisible, dark center or “barycenter” around which everything in the cosmos physically rotates. The main difference being that this is an observable, mechanical system whereas the ancients were more interested in metaphysics.

Neo-Platonists identified the “one” as a primordial, fiery, source, from which everything emanates. I think they believed it was more like a mysterious energy which creates consciousness (“Christ consciousness” for the neoplatonic/neopagan Christian). Either way, it wasn’t a person, but a notion/force, so it seems also to be mysterious and probably also plays a part in Star Wars. Many early Orthodox theologians and Church Fathers were trained in Platonic or neo-Platonic schools and adopted that logic in their theology, and also speak of the Trinity as a fire which generates two subsequent fires (ex: St. John the Damascene). The Christian Trinity bears uncanny similarity with the Platonic Triad… more on this can be read in The Occult Renaissance Church Of Rome By Michael Hoffman, in which he also shows the co-opting of the Trinity back into a neo-pagan Triad. He also discusses Mirandola, Reuchlin, and others, who brought occultism, hermeticism, etc. into the Church with protection from various popes. So, in short, it isn’t a stretch to suggest that the Church - or actors within the Church at various levels of power - were interested in the occult significance of heliocentrism. Pope Francis now, I think, permits all sorts of pagan/indigenous practices without blinking an eye.

Finally, Kepler’s mother was apparently accused of being a witch, and he defended her in trial.

The tragedy once again is that it never mattered who was right or wrong, but who had power and whether that power was being threatened or undermined.

1 Like

@stateless3 In the upper part of page 6 in this book Steinmetz concludes from the reasoning on the previous pages that light is a wave. But one could perhaps argue that this isn’t disputed by QM since they “conclude” photons behave as a wave unless we try to observe them. Then these magical boogers sense that and behave differently! What a scientific way of reasoning. Not… :slight_smile:

@schoepffer, I agree that much information that obviously contains false assumptions like the possibility of space travel using rockets, also contain much truths. And I don’t think all or even a lot of those diffusing this, are doing so knowingly. I just wanted to give a heads up about that regarding electric universe / thunderbolt but I will also confess that I have not looked into their theories much.

Mine “as simple as possible” hypothesis around Aether from what I’ve been able to discern so far is that Aether can simply be viewed as a series of elements lighter than those we know of (helium, hydrogen) that we have yet to discover since they are just that - very light/small and many of them probably quite inert as well. Mind that helium wasn’t discovered until the 19th century because of this. And since science currently is dragged into the Einsteinian rabbit hole it’s not possible for physicists to do much research on this. Everything must be explained on basis of the elements we know about and that there is no aether.

But I would argue that these elements “is space”. Meaning that if they condense into heavier elements (hydrogen, water) there will be a low pressure area in the aether/space which will immediately become equalized because of the equilibrium effect. This can explain why a hydrogen-oxygen explosion isn’t in fact an explosion but an implosion. When hydro-oxygen reacts and condense into water the water molecules occupy less space and the anther will immediately rush in to equalize the pressure.

And from this we can set up and experiment on reasonable hypotheses as to what magnetism and gravity is. If the magnetic phenomena is something that displaces and creates pressure differences in some or all aether substances, then this explains why magnets attract and repel. Compare with a propeller in water. And if the phenomenon of gravity is something that condenses aether into heavier substances, thus creating a low pressure are in the aether, then this explains why gravity only sucks. Pardon the pun. :slight_smile: Compare with a pump in water.

But this of course would require that physics step away from Einsteins mathemagical explanation of gravity - A fourth dimension that gets curved by Newtonian mass…

1 Like