The Structure of

the Cosmos as Deduced

From a Scholarly & Catholic

Paradigm; & How Supposed

‘Evidence’ for an Ultimately

Frameless… or ‘Acentric’

…Universe Fails Utterly

to ‘Prove’ a Centerless

Existence, But Ups







“He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth [hangs] the earth upon nothing  He hath set his tabernacle [placed his temple] in the sun: and he [i.e., the sun], as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber [just like a newly wed husband exiting the spouses’ bedroom] hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way [exults like a giant running the path]: his going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit [circular route!] even to the end thereof [the sun rushes around earth daily]…” (Job 26:7 & Psalm 18:6-7b DRC. Emphases or annotations added, in this or other scriptural quotes in this article, unless otherwise noted.)







Intended by the Author of This Book

for the Greater Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,

for the Worship of the Sacred Heart of King Jesus Christ of Nazareth,

for the Praise of the Immaculate Heart of Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-

Virgin Mother of God,

unto the Protection & Propagation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church &

Her Most Precious Heavenly Dogmas,


under the Euphonious Patronage of St. Cecilia, the Eloquent Patronage

of St. Catherine of Alexandria & the Efficacious Patronage of

Ven. Mariana de Jesus Torres, Virgins &





Domine, non est exaltatum cor meumneque elati sunt oculi meiNeque ambulavi in

magnis, neque in mirabilibus super me. Si non humiliter sentiebam, sed exaltavi animam

meamsicut ablactatus est super matre suaita retributio in anima mea.Speret Israel

in Domino, ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum. (Psalmus CXXX,Vulgata)


St. Francis Xavier, Patron of Catholic Missioners, Ss. Catherine of Alexandria & Francis of Sales, Patrons of Catholic Philosophers & Apologists, respectively, and St. Peter of Verona, the Glorious Martyr, may you be pleased to guide this arrow to its target, either unto eternal life or eternal death! Now thanks be to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ Jesus, and manifesteth the odour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are the good odour of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one indeed the odour of death unto death: but to the others the odour of life unto life. (2 Corinthians 2:14-16b DRC)


St. Francis of Assisi, Humble Seraph of the Incarnate God, and St. Dominic the Preacher, Dogged Cherub of the Triune Deity, pray for your children that they may not fail the test but suffer the malice of the wicked gladly and so gain the Crown of Life!





+++ 1. Centrality +++


Ladies & gentlemen, may we direct your attention to the center stage?


Hmmm. A bit theatrical? Okay. Yes. We admit it. But, as ever, with a serious point.


And that would be? The center is the center for a reason. It’s the most crucial point.


It’s where someone’s attention is directed, and it’s often the most valuable thing around.


The point? Let us review something interesting & foundational from Sacred Scripture:


“And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise [St. Paul the Apostle, inspired by the Holy Ghost, has just finished, in his letter to Catholics in the Diocese of Jerusalem during the first century, citing numerous saints of old, of how great they were in sanctity and endured their earthly trials patiently, while not living long enough to see the Christ appear on earth in the Flesh]; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us [the saintly Catholics of old, before Jesus Christ, will not receive every eternal blessing promised until Roman Catholics of the New Testament win their spiritual race on earth, dying in the state of grace and entering Heaven to be together with these ancient saints of old, all of us together receiving God’s maximum reward according to what we have achieved]. And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses OVER OUR HEAD [meaning, all of the saints & angels in Heaven, watching human beings on earth with the greatest of interest, that people might become Roman Catholic, and die good Catholics, so as to join them up above, sharing God’s Ultimate Happiness together with them], laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us [let us fight against our corrupt bodies, this world of temptations, and the demons & their strategies against us]: looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth [sits] on the right hand of the throne of God [the Throne of Almighty God in Highest Heaven is every Catholic’s Destiny if he or she perseveres with the real Jesus].” (Hebrews 11:39-12:2 DRC)


Now, there is a lot of good stuff in this scriptural quote if you’re paying attention and care. Yet notice the ‘center stage’? Where the ‘action’ is happening, and is so engrossing that a “great cloud of witnesses over our head” are watching us with the most intense of interests? Who, we helpfully explained via an annotation, are the saints & angels above, knowing that “they not be perfected without us.” Perfection here not meaning ‘moral perfection’ due to those in Heaven already being morally perfect --- ergo why we respectfully call the glorious inhabitants of Heaven saints & angels.


To wit, they’re all holy and God’s messengers (what ‘saint’ & ‘angel’ mean). No, the ‘perfection’ here is meant to evoke the fact that, in God’s Ultimate Destiny for those of us redeemed in His Singularly Roman Catholic Body --- His Perfect Plan for us --- we, all of us who are successfully redeemed as real Roman Catholics, dying in the state of grace, only achieve this ‘perfection’ in the utter fullness of His Destiny & Plan for us together, being the complete number of celestial inhabitants as He has ordained.


But again, the point? They’re over our head and witness us below on earth!


So… the center stage? Yes, that’s where God put earth --- at the center.


And this is the significance of Sacred Scripture saying they’re OVER us. Not just in a ‘symbolic’ way meaning more perfect & morally better than us; but, LITERALLY, in being ABOVE us in the heights of the heavens, earth being BELOW these heights. Most literally --- and even though it can (and should) be understood symbolically as well. Viz., indeed, this is WHY Our Creator put earth at the literal CENTER of the cosmos, His Creation, so as to symbolize, literally, our importance as His IMAGE.


Getting it? Starting to come together in your mind? Mental chains busting loose?


Centrality can perform two important functions. ONE, it’s often where an intelligent person will put something that is valuable, wanting it kept safe or putting it upon display for others to see, watch & admire. If, for instance, someone rich has a collection of many antique watches --- with one being prized over all the others, or more beautiful than all of the others --- will not such a prized thing often be put in the central place of the room in which you keep them for display? Of course. Or if an army is conducting someone or something critical from one place to another, will they not usually surround this very critical someone or something, placed at the center, so that an attacker will have to penetrate through all defenses in order to steal or harm this critical prize? Naturally. However, TWO, centrality can be a point of reference. Like a cartographer (that is, mapmaker) will select one point as the place from which all other places are to be referenced. Familiar with that? For example, how did modern people eventually accomplish mapping of the surface of our global earth? Right. The British, when overseeing the Anglo-American Empire in the 1800s, due to their power & prestige, became supremely influential (and possessing great prowess because of their maritime dominance at the time, and extensive railway experience) and, in 1884 at an International Meridian Conference in Washington, DC (next to oversee this Anglo-American Empire as the United Kingdom waned somewhat during the mid-1900s and the United States waxed impressively at the same time…), and established Greenwich in London, where resides a Royal Observatory, as the 0˚ meridian of longitude. All other longitudes all around the world are determined from this ‘prime meridian’. Not that cartographers hadn’t already mapped the earth fairly thoroughly prior to 1884. But that, from this point on, everyone everywhere throughout the world could agree upon this coordinate system, with the 0˚ meridian of longitude as a prime reference. This was particularly imperative for the smooth operation of railroad schedules & global trade, since terrestrial longitude determines the ‘clock time’ used to plan & schedule, as well as provide a kind of ‘universal time’ worldwide so as to further reduce confusion of communication. Scheduling which continues today with airliners, warplanes, spacecraft & etc.


(Heads up: the curious reader may peruse further in Part 5 and Part 6 of the long & complex book, Helplessly Igorant , in order to understand our reference --- no pun intended --- to the Anglo-American Empire as the Anglo-American Empire.)


Comprehending, my dear soul? It may all seem ‘inconsequential’ to you.


I assure you it’s not. Or why did world powers bother establishing 0˚?


We must be able to navigate. Can’t do that if we’re wandering lost.


One must know where & when one is so as to travel or trade.


Successfully, i.e. To wit, able to return richer or alive.


So there are both literal & figurative reasons to have a center, and to know where that center is. Figuratively, God places earth at cosmic center stage to point to how important human beings are, made in His Image, and to keep both us & others above safe while we are watched with the most intense of interests. Literally, earth is cosmically stage center for purposes of celestial navigation & heavenly trade, with the successful return of the King Above All Other Kings in the not-too-distant future, Jesus Christ, the God-Man.


This is more than a ‘scientific issue’. It’s a religious necessity & spiritual epiphany.


Time to wake up, humanity. Night is almost over. The Son is also about to Rise.


+++ 2. Ancient vs. Modern +++


This was no big deal for ancient peoples. The vast majority of them, if not all of them, knew quite well how earth was at the center of the cosmos. And even if they didn’t fully comprehend the structure of this cosmos… all of them… at the time, way back then. That’s not the point. The point is, they didn’t have a problem with this structure.


We do.


Yes, we modern people. It really irks us that earth be center stage. Why? Wouldn’t it be rather ‘flattering’ to think or know that our little world is at the center of everything? Yes, that’s impressive. However, it’s also disconcerting. Such things never occur by accident. If center stage for a gargantuan cosmos --- then there’s a reason for the centrality.


Modern scientists are smart enough to know that much… if they think about it.


Yet modern scientists --- the vast majority of them --- tell us there is no reason for anything, other than blind ‘chance’ or almost-as-blind chance ‘causality’. We’re evolved randomly. Whether cosmologically or biologically, our existence must not be planned. Unless, of course, we take over the reins of ‘evolution’. Then that’s okay. Per them.


There are many ways to describe the difference between ancient & modern.


One way, though, is as just explained. Ancient people? Being at the center of everything didn’t bother them. Much. If at all. They may have been pagan (most of them), yet a total centrality was fine. Even if most of their pagan gods had little or nothing to do with this centrality (they simply found themselves in the same cosmos as we humans, and loved interacting with us, toying with us, using us, or demanding our worship of them, etc.), centrality itself was not at question. Usually. Every once in awhile someone got a bit skeptical or questioning. For example, a few of those uppity Greek philosophers.


Apart from that, though, it was philosophical business as usual. Usually.


The earth was at the center of everything. Period. End of sentence.


After all… why else would the sky spin around us every day?


Around us on earth, that is to say. Yes, point made.


Naturally. Or, er, supernaturally. Somehow.


And there’s your problem. Modern thinkers RESENT the supernatural. We don’t like the thought of a Supernatural God telling US what to do. Or think. Or say. Consequently, we simply must… must!... find a way to do away with this ‘central earth’ thing. There is no center, and there is no Creator. Or, if there is a ‘creator’, this ‘maker’ is a blind maker. Until, at the proper time, we ‘evolve’ enough to take over, we ourselves, humanity, become our own ‘makers’ and ‘rulers’. All thoroughly democratic, of course.


Well, maybe. It’s so hard not being tyrannical when you’re all-powerful.


And this is why modern people must think earth is not at the center.


Ah, but, intellectually speaking, how to solve the spinning heavens difficulty? Hm. Oh, we know, reverse the celestial motions! It’s just an ‘illusion’ that the heavens spin around the earth. It’s actually --- surprise! --- the earth that’s spinning around on its own axis. Problem solved. Supposedly. In actuality, nobody back in the 1500s or 1600s had anything like truly hard data and ironclad reasoning for supposing this ‘fact’.


Just an axe to grind. Or thrilling ‘new idea’ to get righteously excited over.


And thus crusade for. Until, after three long centuries --- your idea ‘wins’.


But NOT with ironclad logic & hard evidence… mostly indoctrination.


I mean, that is, propaganda. It’s all the rage. Think your way free’!


Spin the ‘evidence’ only in your favor; ignore any competing explanations based on identical evidence. Put still another way: ignore, ridicule & smash all other competing explanations until either, one, nobody in a future generation remembers or realizes that any competing explanation exists; or else, two, anyone remembering or realizing that a competing explanation exists is automatically frozen out, mocked or punished for the audacity to question or doubt the new paradigm, proffering a smart & distinct idea.


Nice, eh? Not how hallowed ‘science’ is claimed to work. Purportedly.


A gentleman with the Latin name of ‘Copernicus’ started this dizzying ride for us during modern times. Geocentrism with many ‘epicycles’ and whatnot, said he and his fans, are ‘complicated’. The newly coined ‘heliocentrism’ (everything revolves around the sun) is the real ticket. Notice the shift in center? Not nonexistent… yet… but moved 93 million miles away (say we as of the past century or so, measuring such distances). Now the sun holds center stage. Proven? No. Nobody at the time of Copernicus had any ‘proof’ that they could claim was ‘conclusive’. It was just ‘simpler’, said they. In reality, even old-styled geocentrism could be tweaked enough to predict the motions of celestial bodies with an excellent precision. (For, whilst ‘simplicity’ was the foremost reason they had, seemingly, they did claim old fashioned Ptolemaic geocentrism had some flaws.) Flaws that (supposedly) only a new fashioned Copernican heliocentrism could possibly solve. Which is nonsense. Even Ptolemaic geocentrism could be tweaked, as said, with more  neverending ‘epicycles’, or another clever notion, to make it more & more ‘accurate’. Meanwhile, please realize --- no supposed ‘simplicity’ can ever ‘prove’ anything all alone, by itself. Logically speaking. If you care. About truth, that is. In truth, fairly, Copernican heliocentrism was itself sort of ‘complicated’ by our standards today.


So, jumping the gun? Got a chip on your shoulder? A reason for your preference?


One that is not utterly founded on logic or evidence or rightful authority?


Apparently so. Or else why jump onto the heliocentric bandwagon?


It’s like jumping on a train without knowing where it’s going.


What’s your destination? Or are you a cosmological hobo?


In any case, it was just as much prejudice that motivated them, not simply ‘evidence’.


Then came Galileo. By the early 1600s he’d built a telescope. Nearly the first in modern times, it would seem. (The telescope was patented in the Netherlands by 1608, albeit we really don’t know for sure who first came up with it.) Not very good by our very superb standards today, but enough to see some stuff out there in the heavens --- what we call ‘space’ --- with greater ability & clarity. Jupiter has moons? Venus has phases? And so forth. Accordingly, Mr. Galileo did indeed make some significant discoveries with his telescopes. This, along with astronomer Kepler’s many physical eye measurements of celestial motions by the 1500s, gained in great part from Tycho Brahe’s marvelous & painstaking work, led to Mr. Kepler’s clever but simple (and, it would appear, quite correct) theory that planetary motions are ellipses. I.e., varying kinds of an ellipse, instead of varying summations of circles or ‘epicycles’ presumed until then, based primarily on Aristotle & Ptolemy’s teachings (albeit, many other ancient teachers believed similarly), philosophically in their ancient times, which, via passage of centuries, then turned into what was the dominant & reigning academic dogma.


Now that ruling academic ‘dogma’ changed. From geocentrism to heliocentrism.


For while lots of scholars then had lots of doubts regarding heliocentrism… and there was a competing theory put forth by the aforesaid Tycho Brahe, wherein he ‘combined’ heliocentrism with geocentrism (sort of…), something we can call a kind of ‘Tychonian geocentrism’… one generation of scholars (or ‘scientists’) after another slowly yet surely embraced the titillating delicacy of heliocentric thinking, Copernicus’ revival of a Greek minority idea (although, to be fair, some other ethnicities came up with a similar notion, but never, anywhere, the dominant & popular belief amongst either common people or scholars) seemingly ‘entrenched’ in their minds as ‘certain’ and ‘indubitable’. Again, supposedly. Yet not really. Other competing explanations were not given a real shot. Whilst masquerading as if ‘infallible’, academic dogma had merely, um, ‘evolved’.


But the actual truth? Uh, no. That was in no way at all ‘certainly determined’.


Of course --- this all turns on the idea that you truly want the truth.


And who would be so insane & silly as to actually want that?


The comforting teddy bear of make-believe is preferable.


Modern MYTHOLOGY, to be exact… heliocentrism.


+++ 3. Relatively Speaking +++


Now, my dear reader, please pardon the tongue-in-cheek narrative. Nonetheless, as always, for a very serious purpose. To puncture the pompousness of modern teaching. Showing you, the willing reader, at least, that it’s not ‘impossible’ or ‘unthinkable’ to doubt modern dogma. The open secret --- for those in the know --- is that it is amazingly possible and easily thinkable to be skeptical of what we’re all taught today in schools, or the media, or what-have-you. Hence the capricious tone. You can dare to poke fun at an obviously unquestioned, and ‘unquestionable’, dogma of heliocentrism. Not that I’d advocate endless skepticism or loony conspiracy theorizing. But occasional doubts?


Mmm hm. Perfectly justifiable if you’re intelligent, cautious, honest & educated.


(Full disclosure: as a youngster I was a geeky egghead, of much higher-than-average cognitive capacity, reading encyclopedias & dictionaries for fun, constantly getting A’s during public schooling without really trying, and receiving a degree from one of our nation’s major universities with a 3.05 GPA… also without really trying. I’m a bit ashamed to say I was rather lazy. Then, again, our schools are rather boring. By the rectangularly-arranged, Cartesian-coordinated way, this is not imparted because I’ve longed to ‘impress’ anybody --- I’m a nobody. I’ve no important title, fame, power, ecclesial authority, or immense wealth. If someone is humble enough to listen, it is simply a way to assure that the one writing does indeed know what he is saying.)


The point is, given hard facts with impeccable logic, you can question. I’m just popping the ‘unpoppable’ bubble of purported ‘certainty’ when it comes to astronomical doctrine nowadays. And I’m smart enough to know what I’m talking about. No, not pretending to be a professional astronomer --- although I’ve known & talked with 1 or 2 professional astronomers to know quite a bit about them. But I’m also curious enough, and capable enough, to read their professional & scholarly writings and understand what they’re saying. And without being intimidated by them. Yes, they’re smart. Most of them. Nevertheless, omniscient or infallible? I wouldn’t go that far. They’re also human, precisely like you & I, with biases in tow. In other words, they’ve got some major, massive axes to grind (astronomical phonetic pun intended). So, without being a hotheaded idiot, who questions stupidly, may we instead question intelligently?


Indubitably. That’s the point. Intelligent questioning & intelligent thinking.


Given that you’re prepared and capable of doing that, let us not be craven.


As astrology transformed into so-called ‘astronomy’ by the 1700s, plenty of earlier astronomers --- to use the newer career title proleptically --- were perplexed by the distances of the stars. Why can’t we observe parallax with them? Such astronomers weren’t prepared to think as we do today… that the nearest star is some 26 trillion miles away. As a result, both geocentrists & heliocentrists had some apparently mistaken ideas about stellar distance and, in hindsight, made some unwarranted assumptions. Taking the universe as geocentric, the stars, however far away they be, are NOT going to appear like they’re moving in a way that is described as ‘parallax’. (Parallax is equivalent to closing one of your eyes as you’re looking at something very close to you, 2 or 3 feet away, then closing the other eye quickly to see this something with the first eye opened. Doing this makes the something seem to ‘jump’ from left-to-right, or right-to-left, a little. This is parallax in a nutshell.) But as a heliocentrist? Ah, now you’ve got a problem. If the universe’s stars are being viewed from an earth that revolves around the sun, some millions upon millions of miles of ‘shifting perspective’ going on each year… uh, wouldn’t we see the stars appear to ‘jump’ a tiny little bit, at least, in parallax?


Precisely. That’s the problem. Most astronomers back then thought stars far smaller, along with far closer, than we believe them to be today. It was puzzling that we could observe no parallax at that point in time. Granted, some heliocentrists back then posited what we take now as the unquestionably correct explanation of stars’ greater sizes (many, leastwise) & greater distances that are, presently, academic dogma. Nor do I couch terms to necessarily imply that I disagree with present beliefs in most stars’ greater sizes or all stars’ greater distances. I merely exhibit caution. What we believe right now is not then automatically the ‘final word’. Many assumptions are built into these supposed ‘facts’. Notwithstanding, I’ll not quibble with sizes & distances (well, the distances I might quibble with some, but not this instant as I’m writing these words). That’s not very important at this point in our reasoning. What is? Until 1838, when scholarly Herr Friedrich Bessel made what we consider to be the first successful measurement of parallax (of the star called 61 Cygni), some astronomers still harbored doubts about heliocentrism. This remaining skepticism was eradicated with 61 Cygni’s parallax of approximately 285.88 milliarcseconds measured. (Not exactly what Herr Bessel was able to measure, but remarkably proximate to our latest measurements.) This then allowed us to use simple trigonometry to estimate that 61 Cygni is roughly 10.4 light years distant from earth (an estimate honed to roughly 11.4 light years now, with better parallax measurements, a light year being how far light travels in one year --- ergo, it takes, presumably, 11.4 years for the light from 61 Cygni to reach us here on earth). You comprehend? Don’t feel bad if it’s a little overwhelming. Most of us are not learned about these things. Yet this exact enough measuring of parallax, by Bessel, is what seemed to ‘win’ the day. Other relatively nearby stars’ parallaxes measured, as the nineteenth century went by, with better resolving & better magnifying telescopes as astronomers upped their skills, made heliocentrism appear as if ‘beyond doubting’. Remember… nobody really wanted to believe in geocentrism anymore by then. Successful stellar parallax measurements gave skeptics the final shove onto the heliocentric bandwagon. After that, who was left to dare to question or doubt?


Well, no one then. But today? Okay… me for one. A few of us have the audacity.


But first, what about the several other so-called ‘proofs’ of heliocentrism? Or --- we perchance should say --- that the earth rotates on its own axis daily, and revolves around more distant sun annually? What about the ‘proofs’? Do we ignore them? Not at all. Just waiting for the opportune moment. To mention them. And to explain them very simply.


Rubber starts to meet the road here, turning. Heliocentrism ISN’T the only game in town.


For instance, the phases of Venus. When Galileo initially saw these in a rather crudely constructed telescope (by our marvelous standards now…), he thought, “Why, Venus is like the moon! Parts of its orb are lit up by the sun in a smoothly changing way. This then means, in relation to us, that Venus must not being going around us, but that it’s going around the sun, and I think we are, too, on earth, with Venus closer to the sun!”


And heliocentrists have used this argument ever since. As if ‘unanswerable’.


In reality, a clever person can come up with another perfectly good explanation. Yes, it surprised old style geocentrists. They didn’t expect this. Yet is their surprise, based upon a mistaken notion about Venus, then irrevocable ‘proof’ of heliocentrism, that the planets and earth all revolve around the sun? In logic, that kind of assumption is known as a ‘fallacy’. As in, you’re fallacious to think so, void of hard enough evidence & logic.


Shocking? Yes, if you’re an unquestioning heliocentrist. Not if you’re me, though.


And I don’t claim credit for the adequately competing explanation. Aforementioned Tycho Brahe, eminent astronomer before telescopes were invented in Europe during the modern era, came up with a very excellent proposal that still works today as satisfactory explanation. It’s why we also mentioned, in passing, his version of geocentrism, known as ‘Tychonian geocentrism’. In this proposal, he seemingly ‘combined’ heliocentrism with geocentrism. Sort of. Heliocentrists who discount him like to think of it that way. Whatever one’s sentiment, Mr. Brahe suggested that the ‘planets’ do indeed circle the earth’s sun, but that earth itself is stable & unmovable at the center of the cosmos. So, planets & sun? They, in turn, together move around our very central earth daily.


And, guess what? This truly does explain the phases of Venus niftily. No real stumper there. Well, unless you’re a diehard heliocentrist. Then it’s snickerable or outrageous… the earth MUST move! But actually not. Relatively speaking, all motions are invertible. Heliocentric motions are merely reversed in Tychonian geocentrism, achieving the same relative motions. Hence the same & identical predictions of these motions. Ergo, Mr. Brahe’s version of geocentrism explains the Venusian phases EQUALLY WELL.


But Jupiter’s moons? Named for the redoubtable (and ornery) Galileo, thus Jupiter’s Galilean moons, of which there are four? Not even in the ballpark of a threat to cleverly constructed geocentricity today. It just shocked old style geocentrists back then, they not prepared, by ancient Aristotle’s conventions (and, while a really smart man, in retrospect he did get some ‘scientific’ things wrong, which is why old style geocentrists got shocked by the prospect of a ‘wandering star’ --- planet --- having shining stars, or orbs, orbiting around the planet Jupiter, since dependent on Aristotle & Ptolemy unquestioningly then), to deal with this surprising observation through Galileo’s new-fangled telescope. Some even, supposedly, ‘refused to look’ through a telescope in order to see the plain truth.


Supposedly. It might just be a modern myth, like an urban legend centuries old.


Then, again, people can be stubborn. Even ‘open-minded’ scientists today.


Who often refuse to look at evidence & logic and consider it seriously.


Yet Jupiter’s Galilean moons really have nothing to do with us. No serious & highly intelligent geocentricitist nowadays is ‘shocked’ by Jupiter’s moons. Nor does it in any way ‘prove’ heliocentrism. It’s mostly irrelevant. It simply primed scholars back then to think, “Hm. If we could have been wrong about this --- Jupiter having moons --- what if we, Aristotle & Ptolemy are wrong about geocentrism, too? What if heliocentrism is (*gulp*) actually right? The horror!” And that’s as much as Jupiter’s moons has anything, however remotely, to do with geocentricity vs. acentricity. Period.


So… next up? How about the ‘fictitious’ thing called the ‘Coriolis force’?


Alright, we’ll deal with that one. Rotating objects can exhibit this ‘force’. Hence, if our earth is rotating --- as heliocentrists or acentrists unquestioningly assume --- then certain phenomena occur on earth, in a large way, that becomes observable & measurable with a growing ability to traverse & span the earth. E.g., intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ‘ICBMs’. To properly nuke someone (or, er, a lot of someones) into non-existence, it requires powerful rockets lofting nuclear bombs halfway around the world, or such. Should the ICBM have to go south or north in latitude, what happens? Why, the intercontinental missile starts to ‘curve’ to the right, looking from above. So if annihilational missile is to hit its poor target, we must correct for this ‘force’.


“Aha!” exclaims the dyed-in-the-wool heliocentrist or acentrist. “This fact proves heliocentrism! How do you answer that, Mr. Geocentrist?” Geocentricitist, actually, being the preferred name by some, if not most, intelligent skeptics of heliocentrism or acentrism presently. And, yes, we can answer that one, too. Handily. With a little help from a very smart, and very respected, heliocentrist around the turn of the 20th century, to boot. Delicious irony, eh? Indeed. Let us turn to the German physicist, Herr Ernst Mach.


He blazed the trail, in many ways, with what is known as ‘Mach’s Principle’. You see, some 350 years ago, the highly esteemed scientist, England’s Sir Isaac Newton, upturned academia with his mostly successful equations of gravity, allowing us to better predict all the movements of objects in the heavens (at least relatively nearer to earth). Not wholly ‘explain’ gravity as if we now really understand it, but reasonably proving that, with Sir Newton’s equations, we could calculate, predict and better grasp how objects move in a supposedly ‘vacuumous’ outer space. Do you see the distinction? Human beings often confuse the where of something with the how. As in, where & when celestial objects exist in physical reality at any given moment… especially whilst in motion… using Newton’s equations, we conflate predictions of their movement in the heavens (or on earth, if we account for forces of friction, etc.) --- and groupings of similar motions of objects, in addition to calling a purported ‘cause’ of these various motions ‘gravity’ --- with comprehending how it is that gravity causes any of this. We honestly don’t know how. We just think we do. And pat ourselves on the collective scientific back for our genius. Which, while it is a kind of true genius for Newton to do what he did in the 1600s, is not the same as explaining how the newly minted ‘gravity’ actually causes gravitation. Au contraire, we’re just excellent predictors now. That is, those of us who know these equations, or other gravitational equations with them, also having the paid responsibility to use our knowledge to some advantage (read: astronomers, NASA, the ‘commercial space’ entrepreneurs, and so forth). Yet Newton thought up the simple & arcane, yet beguiling, ‘bucket phenomenon’. If you fill a pail with water and rotate it for awhile, the water starts to ‘curve up’ against the inner perimeter of that bucket. Yet how does it ‘know’ to do this? Remember, Isaac Newton proposed an invisible gravity so as to explain why celestial objects move as they do… and even though it really doesn’t do any ‘explaining’, it’s just a theory with a name. This includes earth, since earth resides with celestial objects, both being part of the colossal cosmos. So what ‘tells’ the water to curve when the bucket rotates, in relation to the pail’s outside, imparting angular momentum to the water in the pail, so water rotates, too? Newton proposed ‘absolute space’, a tenuous concept that was deucedly hard to both intellectually define & demonstrate. Or, to put it differently, if your frame of reference was rotating with the bucket, the water inside that bucket would not look like it’s rotating. But it’d inexplicably CURVE UP…! Or, put yet another way, imagine you’re looking at the water in the bucket that you think is rotating, you viewing it as if it is, whether or not that’s absolutely correct; but let’s say it’s all the cosmos rotating around it instead --- would the water curve up like we’ve seen? Perhaps most telling of all, if the bucket were, say, some 10 miles across, and you were in a suit, pressurized and alive & well, both rotating enough in synchrony to have a visible force  of centrifugality operating, but not enough for you to surely feel it… and there were no vast cosmos ‘out there’, leaving just you and the huge bucket with its water spinning… would there then be curvature of the water at the outer 10 mile perimeter, would you witness it with your eyes, void of a cosmos, despite not feeling a centrifugal ‘force’?


It was Mach’s aim to conceptually & logically solve this dilemma. The outcome?


An ‘absolute space’ is only ‘necessary’ when a de-enthroned earth no longer sits at the center of creation. Suddenly --- how do you find your way in this universe with no frame of reference? How do you derive a foundation for any motion, or for inertia? The idea of gravity is all very nice, but how do you rationally theorize about the water in the bucket, under the influence of this ‘gravity’, curving up against the outer part of the inner bucket during rotation, when there is no frame of reference to put the equations of motion into it and consequently have a chance at truly understanding why this results in the water then curving up as it’s rotated? Mach’s Principle states that the inertia of anything, even if on earth, is determined by it’s relation, gravitationally speaking, to the rest of the stars’ mass in the universe. Only then, thought he, could something like ‘inertia’ exist --- which is the tendency of any object with mass to continue moving as it’s moving without other forces’ operation on it (like friction, or etc.). Seen this way, in striving to explain inertial mass or the spinning bucket conundrum, Mr. Mach realized that heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is meaningless insofar as there is no way to choose which is more ‘real’ in a world of mere ‘relative motion’. (It sort of ‘re-enthroned’ earth.) Yes, Mach preferred heliocentrism. Still, remarkably honest in admitting how, given the more modern outlook of relative motion, there is no real way to ‘prove’ either one. Which is why he pointed out that the collective mass of the distant stars would serve as an inertial reference frame, due to this collective mass exerting an equally collective, and gargantuan, gravitational influence on the earth. Outcome? He realized as well that, if we take the distant & copious stars as a ‘shell’ (in order to simplify enormously difficult calculations), then, considering them to ‘spin around’ the earth daily, one experiences the very same effects, gravitationally, as does earth, were it to ‘rotate’. To wit, relatively speaking, neither one, geocentrism or acentrism, has a leg up on the other. Both will correctly predict the motion we see.


Like the Coriolis force. And deflecting ICBMs. Or, for that matter, the subtle yet real & gigantic effect on moving masses of air or ocean water as they shift from south to north, or from north to south, depending on the polar hemisphere they’re in as well. It doesn’t matter. Literally. The distant but colossal & powerful collective gravity of the stars --- empyrean heavens, as the ancients would have said! --- has exactly the same effects, terrestrially, the multitudinous stars circling a stationary & motionless earth, as the heliocentric view, which presumes the earth to be rotating & revolving. Period.


Again, Mr. Ernst Mach was NOT a geocentrist or geocentricitist. It’s just that he was a philosopher, and, relatively speaking as a philosopher of modern science, he realized how immaterial it really is. He preferred heliocentrism or acentrism, but he also knew, being smart & honest, how it’s more a personal choice of preference than really ‘proved’. It’s why, apparently, he adopted the worldview that he did, which, roughly put, sees fellow scientists as not ‘actually’ getting to the ‘truth’ of nature, but, rather… and hopefully… getting a more & more accurate ‘description’ of this nature, whether or not this clever ‘description’ is the actual reality. He presumed real & hard knowledge of ‘reality’ as unattainable. Merely sensory observations & descriptions, put in terms of our minds, thinking & ideas are possible. If useful, supposedly, they ‘predict’ better. We trust. Realistically speaking, per him, there is no real ‘reality’ --- at least, not one that we should ever hope to truly ‘know’. We can only observe, theorize & predict. NOT knowledge with a capital K, in the sense of truly knowing reality. Sensory data, descriptively arranged in a clever theory, able to predict, is all we have.


He very much represented, and paved the way for, our contemporary physics. It is arguable that, without him and his enormous influence, we’d not have Albert Einstein’s relativistic physics or quantum mechanics, both now key pins of 21st century science, the two having titanically dominated for the past one hundred years or so. At any rate, this strange ‘relativism’ of his, curiously, and strangely, served to revive a contemporary version of ancient geocentrism. For if the collective mass & gravitational pull of the empyrean stars can duplicate precisely the effects of a ‘rotating’ earth… well, then, whatever the ‘necessity’ for a rotating earth? Who needs it? Oh, yes. That’s right.


Dyed-in-the-wool heliocentrists or acentrists do. Desperately so. Oh, and we note:


Mach’s insight or ‘Principle’, plus his calculations based on distant stars as a massive ‘shell’ rotating around the earth --- and even more rigorous & mathematical demos other scientists later devised, such as the Lense-Thirring effect --- put the validity of rotating mass nigh well beyond dispute. If examined honestly, with intelligence, it’s fully logical. A rotating universe produces the same effects as a rotating earth. Neither has a real advantage over the other at this level of discussion. For example, it is astonishingly applicable to the Foucault pendulum, too. This public demo, introduced in 1851 at a museum in Paris, France, heliocentrists hailed as an ‘irrefutable proof’ of the earth’s purported ‘rotation’. Once more, actually not. As Ernst Mach later demonstrated, the collective gravitational force of the distant stars can produce the very same effect. Gargantuan pendulums at certain latitudes on earth, of either polar hemisphere, in pendulum motion through the day and ceasing to swing in the same plane as at the moment of the pendulum motion being started, as the hours slip by, is no more any ‘proof’ of the earth rotating & heliocentrism than is the Coriolis force acting upon ICBMs, air, ocean water or anything crossing the earth’s latitudes north or south.


Mind you, we do not pretend this fairly short book --- in spite of this being a fairly lengthy chapter --- to be a comprehensive treatment of the arguments for & against the heliocentric or geocentric stances. The Machian ‘shell of stars’ and their celestial rotation around the earth gravitationally producing the same effects on ICBMs traveling north or south, for instance, can get rather complex. We don’t wish to overwhelm the reader.


It is sufficient, though, to level the playing field for truly honest & intelligent minds.


Oh, and stellar parallax? It wasn’t quite ‘thinkable’ to the esteemed Mr. Tycho Brahe. He simply assumed, we think wrongly now, that the stars were not as big as we believe most to be, and not as distant, likewise. Ergo, he assumed them to be, essentially, part of a big rotating firmament. No one had detected the ‘stellar parallax’ then, right? Right. So if no stellar parallax yet provable, then no big mystery why Mr. Brahe didn’t address it. In his version of geocentrism, known as ‘Tychonian geocentrism’. Recall this? Correct. He posited that the planets do truly go around the sun, but that both they and the sun, in synchrony, go around a stationary & immovable earth daily. But what about now? Parallax has been observed, and proven, say later scientists. How does the smart geocentricitist address this fact intelligently? Why, merely tweak Brahe’s idea.


Viz., the distant stars, too, revolve around the sun, and around the stationary earth, together with the sun & planets. Unbelievable? You know I’m going to say it… not actually. If the collective gravitational mass of the universe is itself bound together to itself, then, God being God, he can easily set up this collective gravitational mass in rotating motion around the sun (not that the intelligent geocentricitist stupidly claims solar gravity can ‘bind’ these distant stars to itself --- simply that the collective mass itself is bound together by itself, God only ‘setting up’ the motion of that collective interstellar mass to rotate around its center, the sun, God in turn setting up the full arrangement to rotate with the sun around the stationary earth… dual rotations, implanted within one another, as it were). The gist? This is all invertible motions, relatively speaking. It achieves the same thing as heliocentric theory… period.


(Although a heads up. There are some geocentricitists who apparently argue that the parallax of stars can be a by-product of the aberration of light, as viewed on earth, in its arriving from stars in a cosmos twirling about the earth. If provable, it really doesn’t have an impact on the debate at this point in our discussion. Parallax is not inexplicable.)


And geosynchronous satellites? This is a much later ‘irrefutable’ argument for heliocentrism, think acentrists, if they even bother dealing with geocentricity at all. Unanswerable? Let’s all say it together --- not actually. However ‘small’ the earth’s entire mass compared to the immeasurably greater mass of the collective & distant stars, at some point close enough to the earth, logically speaking, the mass of the earth itself & the collective mass of the distant stars is going to CANCEL OUT. Sort of like the mid-point, gravitationally understood (not actual mid-point in terms of a some quarter of a million miles between earth & its moon), between earth & moon, that Apollo mission astronauts crossed as they traveled to earth’s moon, entering the moon’s ‘sphere of influence’. The earth is much more massive than its moon, correct? Right. Luna is, astonishingly, but 1/81st of the mass of Tellus, the ancient Latin names for moon & terrestrial earth, respectively. The point being that, just as today’s astronomers know about Lagrange points around the moon in conjunction with the earth, or around the earth in conjunction with the sun, or around Jupiter in conjunction with the sun, etc., etc., put in gravitational terms based on the masses of the two gravitationally linked objects, so, too, must collective & distant stellar mass at some point CANCEL OUT relatively near to the earth, so to speak, like a kind of Lagrange point, in terms of the two masses pulling directly against each other. Only, this Lagrange point isn’t actually a point. This ‘universal’ Lagrange point is actually a Lagrange circular strip surface area --- so to speak. Hence the geosynchronous orbit. It’s the balance between two ‘spheres of influence’… so to speak. As ever, it’s more complex. Never totally easy; thus the simplification. We’ll deal more with gravity and its implications later in the book.


Leading us on into the very next ‘ominous’ thing to consider:


The Michelson-Morley experiment. At your service, Sir.


+++ 4. The Physics +++

(Optics, EM & Frames)


In Ohio in 1887, to be exact. At Case Western Reserve College, as known then.


Significance? Scientists then had accepted, based on good evidence, that light --- or ‘electromagnetic radiation’ as they’d recently learned with the help of Scottish scientist, James Clerk Maxwell --- was a wave. That is, it had to ‘wave through’ something. Else, it really isn’t a ‘wave’, is it? Naturally. Waving things --- like water waves, for instance --- must wave through something, called the ‘medium’. For water waves, water is itself the medium. It’s what water waves ‘wave through’. What do light waves ‘wave through’, then? Ah, that was the question. Scientists in the 1800s, for lack of a better name or comprehension, called it the ‘luminiferous aether’, based on an ancient Greek idea, updated for their purposes in the 19th century, trying to describe the behavior of light. Michelson & Morley ingeniously, by the technology of their times --- just barely up to doing what they were attempting to do --- built a very sensitive ‘interferometric setup’, wherein a beam of light, split into two, would reflect at right angles to itself, repeated times, until, winding up at a ‘culminating point’, it would be forced to interfere with itself, creating a ‘fringe pattern’ from the shifting relative speeds of the two beams, caused by the medium of luminiferous aether being plowed through by the earth. Heliocentrically speaking, of course. For while the speed of light is thought of as ‘constant’ nowadays, if waving through a medium, the medium itself (an already mentioned ‘luminiferous aether’) moving relative to the source of origin of the luminiferously transmitted light, light’s velocity then actually shifts a little.


This is what physicists of the late 1800s logically thought & concluded.


Hmm… but they assumed the earth to be rotating & revolving, didn’t they? Thus, speaking about waves, they should be able to find a pretty big ‘fringe pattern’ or ‘fringe shift’ with their exceedingly clever & exquisitely constructed device, the interferometric setup. And they didn’t. Which threw scientists into a major tizzy. In terms of undulation, they were all shook up. How to explain this hideous inexplicability? A true dilemma.


Nearly all they could conceive of then, as 1800s closed, was what they called a ‘partial aether dragging’ or ‘complete aether dragging’. Neither very successfully explained the horrifying results of the Michelson-Morley measurements. ‘Aether dragging’ is the idea that a moving earth ‘drags’ the aether with it as it revolves & rotates --- somehow (it was never really ‘explained’ how this could be occurring… just an ad hoc, after-the-fact idea pretended to ‘explain’ the horrifying results) --- thereby ‘nullifying’ the experimental results since a ‘dragged’ aether would stop a light-propagating medium from shifting velocities, and hence shifting & interfering wave patterns, thus making it go away.


Clever? Somewhat. Believable? Depends on your bias to start. Successful?


Uh, no, not really. The only thing this type of ad hoc hypothesizing did, from a later relativistic point of view, was introduce the ‘Lorentz transformation’ equations. Which equations our dear Albert Einstein borrowed for his ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ in the year 1905. Aside from that critical contribution, from our later point of view, it was mostly irrelevant. No pun intended. (Sort of. These terms just keep cropping up!)


Think about it, though. Honestly. Had this experiment been able to be done in the AD 1500s, what would scholars & scientists of that time --- before heliocentrism appeared to ‘win the day’ --- have concluded at once? Right… that heliocentrism CANNOT be ‘true’. Way lower-than-expected fringe interference pattern values would be PRECISELY what one would expect to see if the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, our globe neither spinning on its own axis daily nor revolving around the sun annually. Let’s be merciless and say it again. If you DIDN’T have a pre-conceived philosophical axe to grind, then this ‘null result’ from the Michelson-Morley interferometer, or later ones similar to it with even more ingenious methods, as we near contemporary times, is EXACTLY what a geocentrist would expect. And the majority of thinkers then, in perceiving this, would have very naturally drawn the obvious & logical conclusion:


That heliocentrism can’t be true; rather, earth must be geocentrically stationary.


I’m guessing, probably, that most scientists then, during the late 1800s, were totally incapable of thinking otherwise. They had been indoctrinated in heliocentrism in the universities or studies of scholarly books of the time, and, however smart they were, it was literally ‘inconceivable’ to them that heliocentrism could be wrong. It’s still the same thing today. Most scholars & scientists view a form of geocentrism as ‘inconceivable’. It is literally so far off their mental radar that they can’t even think to think of geocentrism as a possibility. And yet a few of us aren’t cognitively straitjacketed. And at least a few back then, too, weren’t completely straitjacketed in their minds. The aforesaid Albert Einstein, for instance. In one of his written correspondences with his peers, at a bare minimum, he alluded intelligently yet vaguely at the possibility of earth being utterly stationary. And then immediately tossed it in the trash labeled ‘forbidden’, horrified. Thinkers today do the same, if they are forced to consider this ‘forbidden notion’.


Yet how did they banish the forbidden idea? And what role did the eminent Albert Einstein play in all of this? The story is beguiling. I know because I was once one of those beguiled. Although, even then, as an acentrist, I found myself able to challenge, question and poke holes in the reigning paradigm. Another gift, it seems, from Heaven, preparing me to be Roman Catholic in my adult life. For while the simpler minded soul may be indoctrinated in heliocentrism without necessarily denying Catholicism, nothing we see today, in a Modernist world during the Great Apostasy, could even have come to pass without heliocentrism first blazing the way. Other seismic shifts of thought had to occur, also, which is detailed in Part 4 of Helplessly Ignorant , but heliocentrism truly, dare we say it?, is ‘central’ to all this. Without destroying the centrality of the center, implicit trust in the One True Religion of Roman Catholicism as infallibly true could never have been totally successful, nor could the Law of Natural Reason been tossed away, either, like we’ve witnessed in recent years. Brutally devastating tsunamis of thought had to bring our global academics into line. Heliocentrism is that crucial.


With Mr. Einstein a ‘saint’ of the ‘all powerful’ Religion of Modernism.


Indeed, he is their ‘messias’; the veritable ‘saviour’ of acentrism.


Albert Einstein came of age when this controversy raged. (Controversy as in ‘how-to-explain-it-acentrically’, not that anyone then was touting a version of geocentrism as the explanation.) Inspired by the Lorentz transformation equations (which, out of nowhere & in desperation, theorized solid objects as ‘shrinking’ in the direction of motion as a way to supposedly ‘get around’ the not-really-quite ‘null’ results of the 1887 interferometric experiment by Michelson & Morley), Mr. Einstein, relatively unshackled in his youth by the conventions of his older peers, took Lorentz’ idea further. What if, he thought --- he was famous for his so-called ‘thought experiments’ --- the solid object not just shrinks in the direction of motion. What if several measurable aspects of this object, in moving fast, undergo ‘transformation’ the nearer one approaches the velocity of light? (The uninitiated must realize Einstein was not totally ‘original’ in his Special Theory of Relativity, but he was somewhat original; and he was certainly original in how he synthesized everything together as a unique, hitherto-unseen, whole. Incidentally, his first of two Theories of Relativity was ‘special’ because it dealt with the fairly limited, or ‘special’, kinds of situation where idealized space is not ‘curved’ and the motion is merely inertial or ‘translational’, without it becoming nonlinear.) I.e., the Lorentz transformation?


This had the effect of making light, or electromagnetic radiation (EM), central.


For while light’s velocity became ‘invariant’ whatever the relative speed of the ‘observer’, light itself, as a concept or idea, became enthroned in scientists’ minds, therefore central to all of creation. Or, we should say, the self-eternal & self-evolving monistic universe of the cosmological Darwinist. Lucifer the Light Bearer of old, ’ere falling, this is how he assumed stage central in the drama unfolding now, this is how he could appear as an ‘Angel of Light’, as it were, in the minds of smart thinkers and now wholly Godless men. For even if still ‘believing’, a few of them, in a Creator or some form of traditional religion (not Roman Catholic Whole & Entire, though, mind you), they’d already bought into, essentially all of them --- even the tiny few traditionally religious --- several false teachings of the Religion of Modernism. Not that wholly Modernist scientists would openly believe in Lucifer as a real entity, most of them. Nevertheless, that they imbibed the Spirit of the Era, its zeitgeist, being possessed, psychically if not spiritually in the strictest of senses, with an animating yet deadly Luciferian ‘soul’ of a Beast of Satan: their minds, ψυχές (‘psychés’ in Greek), his.


Too metaphorical, analogic, poetic or fanciful for the poor reader? I am very sorry.


All the same, this is the world we live in. And God’s creation is one giant parable.


The visible & material simply evokes the invisible & immaterial, or spiritual.


This is how Our Maker has made it. He’s done so on Purpose, for us.


Otherwise, how would we know? We cannot see the truly invisible.


Light is the first visible thing that Our Creator formed during creation. To wit, He declared, “Be light made”, on the first day of creation, dividing it from the darkness. Notwithstanding, He began everything in ‘water’ and in darkness. (Dear soul, please peruse Genesis 1:1-5 in the Douay Rheims Challoner (DRC) version --- Roman Catholic --- of Sacred Scripture for proof of these facts.) Lucifer and those belonging to him strive to return us to the primordial ‘chaos’ of the unformed creation, to that primeval ‘water’ in the very beginning, with the ‘spirit’ moving over these waters. (See Genesis 1:1-2.) Spirit here symbolizing his Luciferian spirit, of course, he seeking to ‘overthrow’ the One True God, his enemy, by appearing as an ‘Angel of Light’ that deceives us with darkness.  Doing this, Lucifer & fellow rebels seek to ‘re-form’ creation into their image. Comprehending? In academic circles, this means relativistic theories of physics.


You can’t really reconcile Einstein’s relativity with quantum mechanics. Ironically, Einstein had a huge hand in originating both of these twin pillars of a modern physics. He’s notorious for ‘hating’ quantum mechanics for its ‘indeterminacy’, insisting it was incomplete. But neither he nor anyone else since then has --- yet --- managed to come up with something that truly & successfully (read: predicts real world behavior, enough that it can satisfy today’s scientists, leastwise) merges the two together, or else inherits either theory’s mantle and supersedes it, thereby achieving the reconciliation in another way. But today’s scientists are adamantly unwilling to give up Einsteinian relativism… adamantly! Until a successor can be found, they will cling to it desperately.


Why? Because relativity is so ‘good’ at predicting or explaining? Actually not.


Where it is truly correct in its description of motions or etc., it is masquerading as the ‘only’ game in town, pretending that no other theory or previous understanding could possibly do the same; at least, not as well as the relativity theories do so. Where it very marginally comes into the ballpark of successful description, astronomers & physicists routinely ‘massage’ or outright fudge the data, spinning it all to make it look as if, to the uninitiated (or semi-initiated), Albert Einstein was ‘right again’. And where neither of the previous approaches work, they can play with semantics and talk as if the ‘profoundness’ of Einsteinian relativity is practically ‘godlike’, plumbing the depths and fathoming the paradoxes of our reality, so ‘counterintuitive’ to our perception of this reality. And yet, perception is everything, isn’t it? If you can’t see it, then why believe it’s real or true? Stage magicians know this axiom well. They don’t do ‘real’ magic, do they…? They ‘misdirect’ constantly, turning an audience’s attention to where they want it. Then, having misdirected our minds’ gaze, they fabricate an illusion, we thinking it ‘real’.


Not really, of course. Contemporary adults of sound mind know very well it’s pretense. Meant only to amuse, which is why, for true Catholics, if moral & modest, stage ‘magic’ is permissible, being neither sorcerous nor wicked. It’s the immoral & immodest part that makes it foolish. But Einsteinian relativity isn’t innocent like this. Yes, it’s not immodest. Not that I’ve ever been aware of. Unless most recent physicists are female and don’t wear clothing that is safe for real Catholics to gaze upon. But relativity doesn’t merely amuse the scientific audience. And it isn’t meant to simply amuse the uninitiated, either. It is intended to describe ‘reality’ and to be believed as the ‘truth’. End of sentence.


It is a sort of Modernist sorcery. A grand deception of gargantuan scale.


And a lie that is safe for the time being from prying eyes. If claimed to be true, it only applies to that which is super far away and thus ‘hidden’; super small and thus ‘hidden’; or super fast and hence ‘hidden’. That is to say, who’s to say to the contrary? Do you and I have powerful telescopes, particle accelerators or electron microscopes ---? No…? Then we can see the difficulty (no pun intended). None of us are going to be able to say, “Hold on for a moment. My own astronomic observations, particle accelerations or microscopic investigations don’t actually substantiate that.” If, indeed, they’d be willing to listen to you, taking you seriously, even then. After all, do you or I --- do they --- routinely go substantial speeds near the speed of light? Again, no? Then they are the gatekeepers. Wherever they wish, they can claim what they want. Who’s to say otherwise? They pontificate, we fall to our knees in veneration. They have high degrees and are the acceptable adjudicators of ‘reality’ at major universities, institutes, media or etc.


Who are you and I? Nobodies. Unless, of course, you’re one of them. Savvy?


Then you’re somebody. And stay somebody by towing the party line.


Their party line. Not yours or mine, necessarily. But eventually.


Because this is how you dazzle everyone in plain sight.


And one dazzles with light. This is what Mr. Albert Einstein accomplished, starting in 1905. He released his devastating Theory of Special Relativity in that year, along with four more stunning papers. (Which, by the way, we do not claim were mistaken. Our dear Einstein’s reputation is quite deserved. He was very smart, self-taught and ingenious. Yet no extent of genius protects one from self-deception, or purposeful deception of others. I don’t accuse Albert of the latter. I merely note it as an epistemologic possibility.) Still, relativity could not but help to overshadow all its intellectual siblings at the time. His hypothesis was bold & shocking. Arguably, it could never have succeeded without Michelson-Morley and enough time for physicists to stew in a Modern menagerie. Menagerie of their own making, having adopted heliocentrism prematurely. Then, seeking to escape, their single route blocked by their assumptions & prejudices, Einsteinian relativism came to the rescue like a godsend. Or, um, Lucifer-send.


If you take my meaning correctly. ‘Angel of Light’, indeed. A brilliant darkness.


Founded on a mere two postulates. 1.) The laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems. And 2.) the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, in spite of the motion of the light source. That’s it. From this seemingly simple foundation comes all the relativistic conclusions we have since taken for granted. The first postulate is only the physicist’s way of saying, “When no acceleration is involved, and motion is translational or straight, then, in this special case, this new theory of motion applies everywhere in the universe, and even although we can’t actually prove this to be the case.” And the second postulate is the same physicist’s way of saying, “The speed of light through empty space stays constant, no one can measure it to be going faster or slower, regardless of how fast the source of the light is itself traveling as it emits or reflects this light.” Don’t grasp the implications? Don’t feel bad. Most of us don’t. Allow me to fill you in. In saying light travels at a speed that is invariant or constant, the physicist is saying that all of reality must now conform to what we decree. Since the speed of light couldn’t really be an ‘invariant velocity’ and a true wave at the same time, then, to pretend to make it so, scientists now insist that the reality in which light is traveling must obey our decree: shrinking lengths, dilating time, and inflating mass. That is to say, electromagnetic radiation (EM) must behave as we command… and all is well. Acentricity ‘wins’.


And how does a wave phenomenon like EM have a truly unvarying velocity?


We physicists magically declare it to be self-propagating’. That’s how.


And what is ‘self-propagation’? Exactly what it sounds like. “We are no longer pretending to be able to explain --- or admit that, as scientists, we ought to explain --- how EM (electromagnetic radiation, of which visible light is a tiny spectrum of many, many, many frequencies in this EM) can travel through physical reality. It just does. Magically.” And that is hardly exaggerating. This is precisely their approach.


But why? Why pretend to make EM into a ‘magically self-propagating thing’?


Because if they allow this wave-like phenomenon to travel through a medium, like any actual wave, then they cannot logically pretend that its velocity is constant & unchanging regardless of the observer’s frame of reference or motion of the light source. Got it?


And what is a ‘frame of reference’? This is where someone or something can observe everything that can be seen from this frame of reference, moving in reference to it, the frame. Or, in the case of a non-conscious something, where someone, such as one’s self, can at least surmise a perception from this point of view. I.e., what would you see from that point? Reference is everything, pun intended. Can this help me figure things out?


Let’s say I’m going ⅞ of the speed of light, at a 20˚ angle toward the beam of light, or EM, that I’m perceiving. Whether Einsteinian or not, no smart person, who understands waves, will argue the fact that, inasmuch as a component vector of my motion is directly opposed to the motion of this light beam, then this gives the appearance of ‘squishing’ its waves into a higher frequency. This is the Doppler effect, often illustrated by noting how a train horn, in speeding toward you, will seem to be higher in pitch than it is if heard at standstill. Astronomers often speak of starlight that is ‘red-shifted’ or ‘blue-shifted’. In blue-shifting, it’s the very same principle. EM radiation is ‘squished’ in a ‘blue’ way, since visible light --- a tiny part of this EM --- goes from lowest frequency (red) to highest frequency (blue). Hence ‘blue-shifting’. This is brass tacks standard optics.


Where then does the smart geocentricitist part ways from the Einsteinian physicist? Whenever Einsteinian physicists pretend that the observer’s frame of reference or the speed of the light source can have no effect on the perceived velocity of the EM beam itself, light’s velocity remaining perfectly ‘invariant’ and unchanging. (As a matter of fact, Einsteinian physicists play fast and loose with this postulate. When it suits them to conceive of EM radiation, or anything in this universe, as going faster than the speed of light in a vacuum --- but not really --- they pull rabbits out of hats & do so. For instance, the ‘inflationary period’ of the purported Big Bang, wherein the whole cosmos went a lot faster than light’s velocity for a good while, magically ‘inflating’ our universe at beyond-light speed.) This is because a medium, through which a wave moves, is substantial and thus capable of interacting with matter & energy around it in our cosmos. It is therefore subject to the influence of these things. If the earth really were revolving around the sun then Michelson-Morley and later physicists, with growing capability, should have been able to detect the wake of this light-bearing medium as the earth plows through it. This should have slowed one EM beam in relation to its sibling beam, causing a detectable fringe shift pattern. That it did not do so is no proof of an EM wave ‘invariance’. It is weighty evidence, instead, of a stationary earth with far lower results than thought.


Why is this thought ‘unthinkable’? Because Modernists don’t want to think it.


Whether your frame of reference is moving toward the EM beam at some vector significantly high in relation to the velocity of light in a vacuum, or the light beam is itself originating from a source moving at some vector significantly high in relation to light’s velocity in a vacuum (or, to put it differently, the frame of reference of this beam itself is moving at some vector significantly high in relation to the light vacuum velocity), there is no necessity to postulate out of thin air that light’s velocity is ‘invariant’, i.e., that it’s unchanging. For that’s what a postulate is --- something assumed since we cannot go further in our logical proofs or actual discoveries. Have we done that here? No, we only got results we didn’t like and, at first, had no idea what to do with. There was nothing logical or actual ‘demanding’ that we come up with the Theories of Relativity. We repeat: NOTHING! Other than our bias for acentrism, that which we wanted.


Understanding, my poor reader? This later led to Mr. Albert Einstein’s 1915 General Theory of Relativity, wherein Einstein’s ‘field equations’ can be seen as a ‘symmetric order-two tensor’, which is known to physicists or mathematicians as the Einstein tensor and has ten separate & independent components in four dimensional space. It is based on ‘non-Euclidean geometry’, and is asserted to certainly tell us that ‘space itself’ (whatever that means… as a university-educated communicator and theatre-majoring writer, I can tell you that this is mere ‘semantics’, a playing with words to make you think it’s been ‘explained’ when really it isn’t) is ‘curved by mass’, leading to the Big Bang Theory, ‘wormholes’, potential-yet-undemonstrated ‘warp drive’, inescapable black holes and their so-called ‘singularities’ that can never be plumbed, a not-understood-how-it-came-to-be-but-here-we-are-and-things-are-as-they-are-so-it-must-have-happened early cosmic ‘inflationary period’ that mysteriously broke an Einsteinian ‘speed limit’ of light velocity (and yet somehow it didn’t with a little intellectual sleight-of-hand & clever semantics!), and so forth and so on, ad infinitum. These field equations are greatly impressive (and mind boggling to the uninitiated) but so complex, exceedingly complicated, that even today’s computers can barely crunch all input variables and parameters, etc., so as to pretend to result in dependable ‘solutions’. Accordingly, we’ve a complexity that is routinely put into sort-of equivalent ‘simplified’ terms --- just so it can be ‘solved’.


Not that the latter point vitiates relativistic physics. To be fair, Newton’s equations become too complicated when we move from ‘two body’ problems to ‘three body or more’ challenges. But this relativistic physics is a made-up-out-of-nowhere theory in response to prejudice about how the earth moves, in turn depending on postulates that defy any other ‘reason’ to postulate them than this prejudice, and which predicts effects that are never simply ‘counterintuitive’, but positively irrational, self-contradictory, and deny actual reality. This is the difficulty into which we have launched ourselves, with cosmic center eradicated in our minds. We moderns really are cosmological hobos.


E.g., how about the ‘twin paradox’? Rocket away one twin at near-light speed. Meanwhile, the other twin stays on earth for decades until a very old man. Then, his compatriot twin returning at near-light speed, the traveling twin is still young, not yet above 30. This is because Einstein’s relativistic ‘time dilation’ requires it to be so. Time must move more ‘slowly’ for the nigh-well-light-speed-journeying twin. Ah, but hold it. Why does it always work in only one way? I thought motion was ‘relative’. So ought it not be, if everything is relative, that, from the rocket twin’s perspective, the earth then recedes at near-light speed, returning, later on, at the same excessive velocity? Okay. Then why isn’t it the earth’s twin that stays young, time having ‘slowed down’ for himself from the rocket twin’s view, whilst the rocket twin grows elderly? Hm?


Oh, and by the way, have we truly ever performed this demonstration with an actual human being traveling at a near-light velocity, sending him or her to a star that is, say, around 10 or 15 light years distant? No, we haven’t. So how do we ‘know’ that the twin paradox is ‘real’ in any way at all? Ah, yes, and the honest truth --- we don’t know. It’s based on postulates combined with prejudice that is ‘necessary’ because we couldn’t accept an unmoving earth, as plainly demonstrated in 1887, as well as afterward.


The Einsteinian relativist will have an ‘answer’ for this. If pushed into a corner (they don’t normally think of these logical problems themselves, so trusting are they of all the relativistic physics…), he or she will protest, in so many words, that only the rocket twin actually travels, or significantly moves, in relation to the earth. Oh, but then, if that’s true, there really is a frame of reference that is ‘absolute’, right? Right. That’s why relativistic physicists call it a ‘paradox’ (as in, “If two separated persons are traveling at a constant, relative velocity… why should it work in only the one way?”). So why all of the gnattish doubletalk? Ah, yes. Because the Theories of Relativity were not invented in order to actually describe or explain the world accurately --- but to uphold a prejudice in the snarling & uncooperative face of reality. The earth MUST NEEDS MOVE!!!!!!


But actually not. The emperor has no clothes. My frame of reference?


NOT relative. You can spin thought & semantics all you want.


There IS a center, and it is NOT ‘self-propagating’ light.


An undulating ship of bright light proves this!


And even a ‘light bearer’ can’t hide it.


+++ 5. The Astronomy +++

(Quasars, Quantization & Red Shifts)


Astronomy is a fun discipline. It never gets old. Cold, maybe, but not old.


And state-of-the-art astronomy today, in spite of involving telescopes in space or altitudinously placed upon high mountains to escape earth’s inclement weather, air distortions or what-have-you, usually now allows the professional astronomer to sit relatively comfortable in a heated room, staring at a high resolution screen and sipping upon a chocolate mocha, or something similar. Not exactly what it was in the days of massive observatories made of brick or stone, deep in the freezing winter on a peak, trying to stay warm with thick clothing while viewing directly through an eyepiece. Photography made it slightly easier further on. It could still be very cold, though.


Those days are over for now. We don’t even depend exclusively on visible light, anymore. Nope. With infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, x-rays, even gamma rays (the latter a virulently high energy form of EM radiation that can kill you very quickly, if too much and too long exposed), the world of astronomy has expanded exponentially in the past century or so. Radio waves, for example. Predicted in the mid-1800s based on the aforementioned James Clerk Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism (though later toyed with by the ingenious, self-taught & rather irascible English scientist, Oliver Heaviside, who removed terms that seemed to invoke a ‘dimension’ beyond our 3-dimensional spatial existence), then actually made & detected by Heinrich Hertz in Karlsruhe, Germany, and used to send messages by the Italian inventor, Guglielmo Marconi, starting in 1895 till he proved it possible to do so across the vast Atlantic Ocean, by 1902. Commercial radio came out of this, and so did radio telescopy.


To wit, scientists slowly began to realize in the twentieth century how the sky is positively rife with radio sources. Everywhere they gazed, with invisible EM radio waves, and increasingly sophisticated & powerful equipment, they found sources of electromagnetic radiation in the long wavelength radio frequencies practically beyond count. (‘Long wavelengths’ here meaning literally ‘very long’ compared to length in our everyday lives --- the exact measurements can vary wildly, from tiny fractions of an inch to thousands of miles long.) The largest planet in our solar vicinity, Jupiter, is a source of radio waves, as are numerous ‘stars’ or ‘galaxies’. I put the word ‘star’ in apostrophes not because there can’t be actual stars that emit radio waves, but because, as the field of radio telescopy became very developed in the late 1900s, astronomers discovered the baffling phenomenon of what came to be called ‘quasars’ and how they always seem to be attached to vast collections of stars, called ‘galaxies’. And what are quasars?


A ‘quasi-stellar object’. And what, prithee, is a quasi-stellar object?


Ah, graceful modern science. It’s hard for them to admit, but:


They don’t really know. It’s like a star… but not. All we really know is that, when we examine them, they put out energy that is orders of magnitude greater than anything we observe in the universe with our nifty equipment. For lack of a better explanation, we go around pretending that we’re sure it’s because of super-massive ‘black holes’ centered in these mysterious things --- but we haven’t truly proven that conclusively. We simply are not able to imagine another explanation. (And even if black holes are commonly lauded as having been found or demonstrated, and often associated with quasars, this still isn’t ironclad proof that this is the correct, or only, explanation. Again, it’s just the ‘best’ we can imagine at this point in time.) Originally called ‘quasi-stellar radio source’, we later found that not all quasars are massive sources of radio EM. Only about 10% are, we see now. But, wow, what a 10%! Estimates & comparisons of power output are well nigh flabbergasting, if accurate. The total output of our sun’s energy would be a mere drop within the proverbial bucket over its full Darwinistically-imagined lifetime of endless billions of years, compared to a quasar doing the same in a few minutes or months.


Yet why radio waves? Is it something intrinsic to the nature of the quasar?


Not actually. Or, at a bare minimum, not necessarily. Recall red shift?


Yes, in the chapter previous we discussed ‘red shift’ and ‘blue shift’. And it appears quasars are invariably EM-shifted toward ‘redder’ or ‘bluer’ wavelengths. And, when shifted, it’s usually way more likely a red shift. Why? Again… astronomers presently don’t really know for sure. Nevertheless, they’ve spent a lot of time now, for the past two or more centuries, building up a Modernist mythology to go along with their ubiquitous Modernist religion. There cannot be a Creator, think they; and, if a few of them admit purposeful creation is possible, they tediously insist this Maker began the cosmic ball rolling by starting the universe or multiverse… and then promptly ceased to care. He might have done it on purpose or not, but let it ‘evolve randomly’ by itself He did.


Per the dominant Modernist decree, which masquerades as unquestionable ‘fact’.


Indeed, the most eloquent of them will act as if it is something ‘noble’ or ‘genius’ for such a ‘creator’ to do so. It’s like a grand experiment and --- carried to the nth degree --- God Himself, say they (or ‘herself’ for the most politically correct nowadays), makes us from out of Himself, evolving into ‘us’ --- or we into ‘Him’ --- and thereby inducting the venerable lie of pantheism into the hallowed halls of Modernist academia. Which is why Catholicism has insisted infallibly, and thus dogmatically, how creation is ex nihilo’. That is, out of nothing’. This is because real Catholics adore the real God. He alone commands an ultimate love & obedience since He is Eternally Uncreated and exists independently, not needing anything else. He is Utterly Complete in & of Himself, creating merely because He wishes to. Whereas a perpetually forming and always incomplete --- thus needy --- pantheism? Always leads to creaturely self-worship.


But no Modernist scientist is truly Roman Catholic, eh? No, they surely are not. Ergo, whatever in the world would keep them away from pantheistic thinking? And why not worship your own self when such thinking is so very flattering to you, and corresponds wonderfully with your ludicrously high ‘self-esteem’ and a ridiculously exalted personal opinion of your amazing intelligence or abilities? I mean, it’s tough not acting like you’re a ‘god’ when everything you’re able to do, or think you want to do, appears god-like’.


Put alternatively, whether or not all Modernist neo-pagans want to believe in a cosmos that is ‘conscious’, so to speak, and determined or predisposed to ‘evolve’ into something unique or greater than how it was before --- in this case utilizing conscious human beings to do so --- no intelligent & visionary Modernist neo-pagan can ultimately escape, given enough time & successes, the lure of mere flesh & blood human beings ‘evolving’ into gods or demigods by means of our dexterity, cleverness, machines, organization and technology. Hence the irresistible dream of the ‘Man-God’, mighty ‘Homo Deus’.


(The curious soul may read about this in Part 6 of the book, Helplessly Ignorant .)


We conquer one problem after another… or at least like to think we do. Virulent & infectious diseases? Got that covered in the rich part of the world --- that is, for as long as our antibiotics hold out. Severed body parts, or bodily organs failed? Microsurgery & so-called ‘transplants’ can increasingly solve such problems. Cancer? Definitely harder, but we are making slow progress. Even genetic tinkering is helping. Speaking of which, why not genetically tinker with ourselves and ‘self-evolve’ into whatever we want to be? If unshackled by old-fashioned religious prohibitions & morality… well, why not? Let’s become deistic chimeras and transcend mortal existence and an ‘eternal’ multiverse! Death? Why, just another tricky algorithm to overcome, a biological challenge and algorithmic riddle rooted in our DNA or physical cells. And the stars? I mean, hey, flabbergasting as it once seemed to our stupidly & laughably backward ancestors:


We’ll conquer that one, too. Given enough time & will --- what’s to stop us?


Oh, yes. That’s right. A Real God. The One we don’t like to believe in.


But let’s not bother with Him. He’s a ‘fantasy’, and a total killjoy.


As if we should have to listen to this God, or obey Him. Ha!


Modernist astronomers are no different than the rest of us during Modern times. They have very little humility when it comes to pretending to ‘figure out’ the mysteries of the cosmos. So what if they can’t yet even get past earth’s moon with real human astronauts, or past the KBO belt straddling the pedestrian-entitled ‘solar system’? The daring probes, Voyager 1 & Voyager 2 (also the Pluto+ probe, New Horizons) are speeding through and past the heliopause, we’d like to think. Although, to be completely honest & humble, we think it’ll take another few tens of thousands of years to reach a ‘nearby’ star. Still, they (contemporary astronomers) possess incredibly powerful telescopes of all kinds, types and frequencies now. Sitting here, terrestrially confined, their eyes and minds seem to traverse the cosmos ‘free & unrestricted’. Confined neither by hard facts nor ironclad logic, they simply make observations, manipulate the data, add impressive-sounding lingo and voilà! They can come up with any untestable --- or incredibly difficult to actually test --- hypothesis or theory a Modernist might wish. Unlimited cosmos? Pshaw... child’s play. Plunked in a terrestrial armchair, imagining theories of cosmological structure & origin? We have Ph.D’s! Do you dare to doubt us?


Um… that would be a yes. Affirmative. I do dare to doubt you. Mind you:


NOT mindlessly. RATHER, mindfully. I intelligently doubt your claims.


Shocking? Angering? Insulting? Sorry. But I care more about TRUTH.


Which is what you pretend to tell. I’m calling you out. You’re a liar.


But what has this to do about odd quasars? Thank you for asking.


Let’s get down to brass tacks. Whether or not quasars pour out radio waves, they are unbelievably powerful, pouring out mind-boggling quantities of energy, and they are frequently the most red shifted celestial objects in the heavens. Or, er, ‘deep space’ as most contemporary astronomers would be most likely to say. Or ‘intergalactic space’. Or whatever. Doesn’t matter what you call it. The concept is what is important. These things are way out there, fantastically red shifted, equally fantastically energetic, and seem to be associated with the cores of what we now call galaxies. What are they? Modernist science that is founded on Big Bang Theory and a cosmological Darwinism --- not to mention the relativistic physics of Albert Einstein --- have pet explanations purporting to explain such hard-to-explain things, but it’s all a house of cards built on extremely thin air. That is to say, remove just one airy assumption of a ‘card’… and the entire edifice of airy fairy cards collapses. Not to mention that, in the study of quasars, Modernist scientists routinely ignore certain studies & facts, or refuse to study further or verify them.


Why? What are they afraid of? Or what are they so arrogantly ‘sure’ about?


Isn’t ‘science’ supposed to thrive on intelligent questions & fearless data?


Yeah, that’s the myth. Scientists are modern ‘popes’, infallibly ‘certain’.


What’s wrong with this picture? Oh, nothing much. Just everything. Well, okay, that’s exaggerating a tiny bit. Alright, alright. More than a little bit. But not much exaggeration. How so? Let’s start with the red shift. Today’s scientists --- including astronomers --- are almost always (we repeat, always!) cosmological Darwinists. This means they presume, out of nowhere, that everything in the cosmos ‘evolved’ by chance… allied with strange ‘rules of operation’ that appeared out of thin air for no reason at all… over billions and billions of years into what we see today. It also means they presume, out of nowhere, how everything is arrayed as it is for no intelligent purpose at all… period. This is overwhelmingly why they are driven, passionately & mindlessly, to reject earth’s centrality and assume, out of thin air, that the cosmos has no center. Yes, you comprehend correctly --- heliocentrism, which led to acentrism, is a dogma’.


It’s not ‘proven’ by hard facts or ironclad logic. It’s just assumed to be true.


This is because, as noted above, an earth situated at the center of the cosmos is too ridiculously unlikely to have happened by ‘chance’. And yet cosmological Darwinists simply ‘must’ believe that everything happened by chance. This includes the structure of the cosmos. Our earth at the center of everything? Unbelievable! Say they. Because they ‘must’. Because they ‘can’t’ believe in a Creator Who made everything according to a plan that puts our little earth at the center of everything. Now do you understand? Is it making sense now why they insist on pretending to be ‘humble’, as if ‘virtuous’ for realizing, finally, after all these millennia, that earth is in no place particular, an infinitesimal orb in the universe, evolved by chance, wandering purposelessly?


Right. It’s not factual or logical. It’s an assumption. Indeed --- a DOGMA.


As in, “This must be true! Else we have to admit the Catholic God is real.”


Real science? An actual pursuit of truth? Okay. Dream on. Be mindless.


Don’t expect me to join you, though. I like truth and prefer mindfulness.


Are you with me? Then read on. Because this is where the rubber meets the road. It’s highly improbable to find astronomers willing to buck their peers --- especially the ones in powerful positions that decide who gets to publish in prestigious science journals or be tenured at prestigious universities or institutes --- but a few brave souls have been curious enough, and brave enough, to do so. Oh, not that they’re clear-minded enough and brave enough to totally buck the system… but intrepid enough to investigate what they’re not supposed to investigate, and intrepid enough to report the data as it is, without ignoring, suppressing or trashing it. And such highly trained, highly degreed & highly unusual astronomers have dared to investigate quasars, register the data, and report it clearly enough to draw some astonishing conclusions. Such as? Well, again, let’s get ‘red’.


I mean, why are quasars so red shifted? Or, let’s be really brazen. Why did the famous early 20th century astronomer, Edwin Hubble, find nearly the whole universe to be ‘red shifted’, as if everything in the universe is ‘expanding’? By the 1800s, every astronomer was ‘heliocentric’ or ‘acentric’. I.e., they just assumed, with fallacious logic, that earth is not possibly at the center of our creation. It’s ‘revolving’ around the sun. And, as the idea went uncontested, this notion morphed into our present academic ‘dogma’, presuming the earth & sun to be in no place special, the universe itself with no center, and humanity just a randomly ‘evolved’ species with conscious intelligence, purposelessly existing on earth for no reason other than to strive for whatever we want (and can)… then we die. How inspiring & noble, eh? No wonder modern human beings are nihilistic and suicidal. Notwithstanding, as the Religion of Modernism ‘triumphs’ in the Great Apostasy, whatever in the world is the result? Correct. We DEIFY ourselves. To wit:


We ‘anoint’ ourselves as our own ‘gods’, evolving into anything we wish.


Now do you see why we ‘must’ believe the universe to be ‘acentric’?


If we don’t, then we’re forced to admit that we aren’t ‘gods’.


After all, what are the odds we are randomly at the center?


And, yet, simple logic reveals the fallaciousness of our Modernistic thinking. Don’t believe it? Then use your brain. Actually dare to think. If our universe popped into being for no apparent reason in a ‘Big Bang’ --- well, isn’t that the center? Truly. And if it’s all spinning… because at least some astronomers admit that the cosmos does rotate, despite being unwilling to entertain the concept that it could spin daily around the earth… well, doesn’t that necessarily & rationally imply that there’s a central axis about which the universe rotates? Indeed. As scientists would say, the cosmos is anisotropic.


Put simply, ‘anisotropic’ just means a direction is involved. Viz., the universe, or cosmos, is NOT acentric. It is NOT just ‘homogeneous’, and has a symmetry which is possible to detect. At a bare minimum, some contemporary astronomers know this, able to admit it. It’s just that they WON’T admit the earth or it’s sun might have anything to do with this cosmic center. Because IF they dared to suspect this was true --- well, then, I mean, how dare they assert that the earth or its sun couldn’t possibly be in a position that is certainly SPECIAL? Like, for instance, being at the CENTER of this cosmos? Getting it? This is their bias. This is their Achilles’ heel. None of them can see the cosmological truth thoroughly, with full correctness. But they can see enough to know BETTER.


What has any of this to do with mind-bogglingly red shifted quasars, however?


When Mr. Hubble managed to convince modern astronomers, starting in the 1920s, the universe was ‘expanding’, he concluded this from the factual observation that most things in the cosmos were red shifted. This is an EM (electromagnetic) Doppler shift tending to ‘stretch out’ the wavelength of light emitted or reflected from the telescopically studied celestial object, such that, when spectroscopically examined, it becomes apparent that spectral lines for certain elements or compounds are shifted to a different frequency. Meaning? If red shifted, then the spectral lines of elements or compounds are tuned ‘lower’ in frequency. The mathematics is arcane… so we’ll not go into details here… nonetheless, an astronomer can then calculate the ‘speed’ of a celestial object in relation to the earth, where resides the astronomer making these observations (or, nowadays, if a telescopic probe in space, at least far nearer to the earth than the probe is to the celestial object being observed). Upshot? Edwin Hubble & later astronomers were literally forced to conclude that most celestial objects, far out in space, were ‘receding’ from the earth. And, since they were firmly acentric in their philosophical assumption about how the cosmos is structured, then they could not possibly consider the idea that the earth is somehow central and everything else ‘racing away from’ the earth. Hence the Big Bang… for if ‘receding’ at remarkable speeds (the further they think the object is, astoundingly ‘faster’ is it ‘receding’, they assuming the greater red shift to mean jawdroppingly greater velocity of recession as a result of ‘expanding’ cosmos).


Comprehending? Once more, don’t feel bad if it’s a bit confusing. Simply doggedly yearn for the truth. Our Creator will help you to understand enough to be reasonably confident. Not irrationally so; that is a contradiction in terms for a true Catholic. Our Faith is rational, not blind. Yet you also don’t need to be a genius or highly educated to grasp the essence of these ideas. You merely have to get familiar with them, like learning the layout of a new city, or a previously unexplored forest. Once acquainted with foreign terrain, the unknown becomes known, and knowable. That’s what I’m doing here. I’m acquainting you, the reader, with the mental terrain. Don’t give up with one perusal. Be dogged. Keep at it till you comprehend. Ask King Jesus & Queen Mary to assist you.


Believe me. They will. Be you of a sound & intelligent mind, oh, yes, They will.


Now think carefully. Why is it that Modernist astronomers ‘must’ assume red shift automatically means ‘receding from’ us on earth? Mind you, I’m not saying it can’t be ‘recession’. I’m just saying, “Why must it be interpreted as recession?” See the contrast? And the answer: “There is no reason it ‘must’ be interpreted as recession.” Interpreting it as ‘recession’ is simply the result of an unrecognized assumption. Any physicist familiar with optics, and the wave-like nature of light or EM, knows that motion can be inertial. He or she knows, too, that the motion can be non-inertial. The distinction? All inertial motion is translational; i.e., it continues in one direction, unchanging without a force operating on it, like a propulsive motor, gravity or friction, etc. Non-inertial motion, howsoever, is not simply accelerated or de-accelerated motion. Namely, a force that accelerates or de-accelerates an object in primarily one direction. Nevertheless, there exists something that physicists call ‘angular momentum’. Plainly & roughly put, this amounts to rotation of an object. It’s sometimes called ‘rotational momentum’ and is thought of as a kind of ‘linear’ momentum in that it doesn’t necessarily make these spinning objects ‘go’ anywhere. And yet it isn’t just inertial… and it isn’t ‘linear’.


Accordingly, a spinning object is accelerated, as it were, around its own axis.


Now, why is this pertinent? Red shift of light or EM doesn’t occur only when the luminous or reflecting something is moving away from you. Red shift can transpire, additionally, when the luminous or reflecting something is moving around you. It is, literally, immaterial to the red shift. Both motions --- away from you or around you --- result in red shift of the EM that you perceive. So, the gist? Modernist astronomers fail to consider the possibility that the reason they see most celestial objects in the deep heavens as ‘red shifted’ in relation to the earth is NOT because the cosmos is ‘expanding’, BUT because the cosmos is rotating. To wit, the entire universe has angular momentum, God’s creation purposefully set up to rotate around the earth at cosmic center.


And guess what? Yes, this would make nearly everything red shifted.


That is, in relation to the earth. Where we sit, seeing the cosmos.


Thus far, this is a logical argument that seeks to level the playing field. Logically speaking, we’re pointing out the philosophical & religious ASSUMPTION built into Modernist mythology, a whole ‘creationist myth’ designed for modern people to believe in, taught that it is ‘unquestionable’, and that we moderns --- somehow --- are so smarter, so much more ‘enlightened’, than our poor, stupid, backward ancestors. Which is a load of crock. It is arrogance personified. As if we couldn’t be wrong, too, the same way we presume them to have been wrong so long ago. We claim they had mythologies? Okay. So why in the world are we strangely ‘exempt’ from this same tendency? What makes us more ‘clever’ today? What --- supposedly ‘evolved’ and ‘expanded’ cranial volume? Taken seriously, Darwinian evolutionary theory has no reason to ‘evolve’ creatures which are more & more intelligent. Intelligence might give you a ‘survival edge’; notwithstanding, what about all the species Darwinists say have been around for ‘millions’ of years that don’t have anywhere near the intelligence of humans?


What about them? What’s their ‘survival edge’? Clearly not intelligence!


The point is, it’s a stupid assumption that we’re ‘smarter’ today.


We have an amazing civilization. That’s not at dispute. We have an astonishing technology. That’s not at dispute either. It is, though, stupid of us to presume, out of thinnest air, that civilization or technology magically makes us ‘smarter’ or ‘cleverer’ than our ancestors. That is illogical; it is a fallacy; and it is unwarranted assumption. Ergo, their ancient belief, quite common & widespread, of geo-centrality, is in no manner, whatsoever, indicative of their smartness or lack thereof. In reality, given technology today, and what it can tell us, it’s actually arguable that we’re stupider. Wherefore? Because we refuse to look at the data with an unjaundiced eye, taking evidence as straightforward and making reasonable deductions based thereon.


In any case, please get it through your head --- red shift everywhere in the sky, deductively speaking, can be from angular momentum (rotation!) of the empyrean heavens around a central earth, and NOT just the result of (supposedly) the cosmos ‘expanding’ from a Big Bang ‘singularity’ 13.5 billion years ago. End of sentence.


But now comes the coup de grace. For there IS hard proof of celestial rotation.


A few brave & hardy astronomers have shown, with plenty of adequate research over the decades --- and in spite of being frozen out by their cruel & dismissive academic peers --- that quasar red shift values are weirdly & inexplicably ‘quantized’. Well, inexplicably if you’re a committed cosmological Darwinist. And, comically enough, most if not all of these brave astronomers are not believers in geocentricity. Hence, they are not biased toward the idea of a cosmically central earth. They are, though, honest enough to say what they’re finding… that, as they measure the red shift values of these incredible quasars, the values keep lining up in distinct & separate amounts and NOT in a continuous & smooth way ‘acceptable’ to any fervent Darwinist. In other words:




Do these few brave astronomers have another logical explanation for the quantized quasar red shift values? At least one of them thinks he does. We’ll not go into it here. Why? Because he might be right? No, because this is supposed to be a relatively short book and this is already a long chapter. Besides which, not even his fellow peers, who pay attention at least, find his explanation plausible. Not that he’s unintelligent. He’s learned & highly educated. Were it not for his dogged investigation of the quasars’ quantized red shifts, his peers would laud him as the legend he is in astronomy.


No, we merely sensibly note what we remarked in the previous chapter:


If scholars during the AD 1500s had been privy to our astronomical instruments, technology & data, seeing the quantization of quasar red shift values, then they would certainly have concluded the obvious --- that this is very hard proof of geocentrism.


I mean, what else so easily, simply & niftily explains such an astounding thing?


Not the aforesaid brave astronomer’s ‘explanation’, which grasps for straws.


Because, for all his courage, he’s still a zealous cosmological Darwinist.


With huge evolutionary axe to grind. Bias? Geocentricity is verboten.


Too bad. Because we’ve got yet another tough mystery to explain.


And cosmological Darwinism, sadly, is just NOT up to the job.


+++ 6. The Gravity +++

(Let Us Get Machian Again…)


Hey, Mach. What’s up? Everything, hm. Know how you feel. Hypersonic.


Pardon the aerodynamic, ontologic, technologic, sardonic, goofball college humor.


It’s irresistible when you’re in the know, love to know, and know how to employ this knowledge in order to know some more. You know? Inquiring minds desire to have this knowledge. Uninquisitive? Fine. No one requires you to know --- yet. But for me or others like me? All apologies… but, yes, we want to know. Knowwhatimean?


But why bring Mr. Ernst Mach back into this universal discussion?


Let’s give you the whole picture once more --- everything.


That’s right. Mach hypothesized that it’s universal mass & gravitation that gives any meaning to the concept of ‘inertia’. That is to say, how do we know that an object will continue to move in one vector direction, unimpeded unless acted upon by other forces, and how do we detect this motion or momentum, knowing that it exists? Or, put another way, if enclosed in a sealed, opaque vessel, moving smoothly at half the speed of light, without sensations of acceleration, de-acceleration, turns, rotation or any kind of an angular momentum, cruising through thoroughly empty space and a cosmos utterly devoid of anything else in existence… well, I mean, how would you know that you actually are moving along at a particular vector at half the velocity of light?


Understand the challenge? Grasping the riddle now? Motion is a puzzle.


This is why Mr. Newton came up with his idea of ‘absolute space’.


It was a desperate gambit --- for a highly intelligent thinker & scientist --- to salvage, with some degree of academic & intellectual respectability, the deceptively ‘simple’ little concept of motion, direction, position & relations between material objects in a material universe. After all, earth is no longer at the center of ‘everything’. How, then, does this everything relate to itself? What does motion mean when you can’t know where you exist, don’t know where you’re going, and don’t know how fast you’re going there? Destroying the center throws everything into disarray! Ergo, Mach’s approach.


He didn’t really believe earth was at the center. But he realized, ingeniously, that you could act as if the earth is at the center of everything. And, taking everything altogether, that gravity… whatever this undefined & slippery concept is… would tie everything into one, causing it all to work in relation to everything else. Therefore, inertia. Viz., that odd tendency for objects in motion to continue in motion without some force acting upon it and thus go on traveling at the same speed, in the same direction, indefinitely. This is inertia in a nutshell. Yet how does an object ‘know’ to have inertia? What intrinsic property of a material object causes the strange thing of ‘inertia’ to arise?


Nobody could really say how. Not even the best & brightest of us.


Consequently Mach’s notion: it’s everything gravitationally.


This is what gives the idea of ‘inertia’ some heft (no pun intended… much). This is, whatever you want to call it, what gives objects in motion the ability to stay in motion, unaffected by other forces, and what gives us, an intelligent observer, the ability to say it’s in motion, with confidence. I mean, if it were just the lone object in utterly empty space devoid of any kind of matter, energy or what-have-you, then what on earth --- indeed, off earth, too! --- is motion? What gives it any meaning or relevance? It’s gibberish. You can’t tell that you’re moving when there’s no detectable force or acceleration of any kind operating on you or the object, and no universe or any-something-at-all visible or detectable to you in relation to that object’s ‘motion’.


Period, end of sentence, case closed, and intellectual judge’s gavel resounding.


So what is motion, really? Or, as physicists would say, what is inertia, truly?


This is what Mr. Ernst Mach, philosopher & physicist, dared to solve for us.


Not everyone agrees with him, necessarily. But almost everyone in academia does agree… if only by default. I.e. --- what better explanation has been brought forward? Nothing. Even with a century longer to ponder it. Oh, true, scholars will argue that his principle --- Mach’s Principle, as it’s often called, Mr. Albert Einstein himself apparently starting this custom --- is poorly defined, or can be re-formulated in various ways with a surprisingly diverse display of terminology or grammatic structure. No matter (no pun intended again… much). It’s immaterial. The Principle is simple, fundamental & self-evident. Simple reflection reveals it. If gravity means anything at all, and even if everybody pretends to know what it is without really knowing… it’s just there, it undeniably exists… then only the collective mass & gravity of everything in the ‘universe’ can give the concept of inertia or motion any validity. Once more --- remember the example of an empty space & cosmos? How would anyone, who locomotes across this null existence, know that he or she moves with absolutely NEITHER POSITION NOR SENSE OF MOTION AVAILABLE TO YOU?


This is what we mean when we say such ‘motion’ is meaningless in this existence.


Now, Mach’s Principle doesn’t explain everything. But does give us a beginning.


Which is why, with delicious irony, he is responsible for igniting geocentricity.


It’s a grave matter, one we should not take lightly. That is to say, gravity.


We may not be able to say what it is or how it works, but it is there.


And we can describe what it does, even without knowing how.


And, oddly enough, being logical, it leads right back to earth.


Accordingly, right back into the arms of a central earth.


Alright, so what does this have to do with anything? Specifically, how does this tie in with geocentricity and cosmologically Darwinist acentricity? Well, recollect the famous astronomer, Edwin Hubble? Right. He pioneered telescopic & spectroscopic observations showing most things in the sky --- the deep heavens, or outer space --- are red shifted. As a matter of fact, the ‘further’ one seems to look into deep space, the greater this strange red shift. Darwinistically speaking (that is to say, today’s scientists & astronomers just assuming, out of thin air, that the cosmos ‘evolved’ into its present form over ‘billions and billions’ of years), and resolutely against, or incapable of, thinking a Creator made our vast creation on purpose, structured for a very real & very precise reason, they thus had no recourse but to interpret this nearly ubiquitous ‘red shift’ of celestial objects to be supposed ‘evidence’ for an ‘expanding’ universe. Or, to put it another way, it’s like you, I or someone else ‘blowing up’ a balloon. Imagine that this balloon has colored polka dots randomly over its surface, easily visible. So what happens as you blow the balloon up, expanding its surface area? Correct. The polka dots appear to ‘race away’ from each other, getting further & further apart. Now translate this metaphor to the universe. Cosmological Darwinists could imagine no other explanation for red shift everywhere they gazed into the cosmos except for universal expansion. To wit, the whole universe is ‘blowing up’ like a mammoth balloon, the stars & galaxies, etc. (the metaphorical ‘polka dots’), appearing to ‘race away’ from each other. Mind you, this ‘racing away’ is not the same as saying that two or more celestial objects are literally moving away from each other at a certain velocity in relation to each other. This can be the case. But what Modernist cosmologists are talking about when they speak of ‘cosmic expansion’ goes beyond this kind of relative motion. They mean, quite seriously, that the cosmos itself must be ‘expanding’ mostly uniformly all over the place, all at once, for billions upon billions of years on end, just like a balloon being blown up and the aforesaid ‘polka dots’ appearing to get further & further away from each other. See the distinction? This is why they felt compelled, by the 1960s (Hubble came out with the jawdropping red shift find in the 1920s, incidentally), to believe in what they called, whimsically, the ‘Big Bang’ --- something pretty much everyone is now at least a little bit familiar with due to media trumpeting it all over the place for decades… not least of which is the fabulously successful sitcom, The Big Bang Theory. (Heads up: if truly Catholic, don’t watch entertainment like this blithely. Today’s shows, on whatever media platform, nearly always indulge improper jokes, scandalous plots, immodesty and all sorts of brazen immorality. It is not --- repeat, NOT --- wise to watch these things casually, especially for the purpose of ‘entertainment’. Your immortal soul is more important than worldly, and mortally sinful, ‘amusement’ for a brief few moments of ‘pleasure’.) Prior to the Big Bang Theory dominance, many, if not most, Darwinistic scientists preferred to believe in the out-of-thin-air ‘Steady State Theory’, which emptily hypothesized that the universe was ‘eternal’ and --- when confronted with Hubble’s ubiquitous red shifts --- attempted vainly to salvage their baseless theory with an ad hoc ‘creation’ of tiny bits of matter uniformly everywhere throughout the cosmos in order to maintain a ‘homogeneous’ universe that could go on forever & ever. Starting to see the bias they wield?


Indeed. This bias has not disappeared with the now dominant Big Bang Theory. For whilst forced, at first, to grapple with the idea of a non-eternal cosmos with a sort of beginning that was impenetrable due to it being a ‘singularity’ (read: matter & energy packed so densely that the rules of physics, as they envision them, break down and they have no way to know what happened at this singular point in space & time), turning to quantum mechanics as ‘justification’, they have dared to imagine that the universe is really a ‘multiverse’ (untold numbers of ‘verses’ pop into existence all of the time, everywhere existence exists, our ‘verse’ but one amongst an infinity) or that our cosmos, collapsing back into itself in a ‘Big Crunch’, somehow magically & inexplicably does a ‘rebound’, performing a ‘Big Bang’ all over again… and again… and again, ad infinitum. Some even go so far as to subscribe to the ‘Many Worlds’ interpretation of present day quantum mechanics, wherein, with every single point of discrepancy (read: one of two things could happen), both things really do happen, the cosmos splitting endlessly & infinitely into countless ‘worlds’ or ‘universes’. Bemusing? Or flabbergasting?


Welcome to the milieu of modern day physics & cosmology. Not liking a Creator, despising the idea of earth being at the center of everything for a divine purpose, leads invariably to exactly this kind of ‘intelligent’ chaos & silliness. This is what occurs when sentient & intelligent creatures made in the Image of the Creator refuse to serve Him and refuse, just as resolutely, to seek His One & Only Infallibly True Religion, Catholicism Whole, Entire & Undefiled. Not that the Roman Catholic Church has infallibly defined any kind of geocentrism. As far as I can tell thus far, She hasn’t. But She has also not infallibly affirmed heliocentrism or acentrism, and has clearly favored some sort of geocentrism in the meantime, since the era of Galileo, who so bodaciously upped heliocentrism, thinking his mind, intelligence & observations to be ‘infallible’. Ecclesiastical historians say he recanted on his death bed, chastened. Let us, in Catholically charitable empathy, trust this report is true. Meanwhile, face facts:


Modernistic, Darwinistic & pantheistic cosmology leads to intellectual chaos.


They call it the ‘development of science’. In reality, it is a sheep-like lurching, here & there, helter skelter, as new ideas and further thinking or theories throws one generation after another into prejudicial courses, embracing notions and spinning data (or ignoring data, as the case might be…) with wild & ridiculous abandon. Case in point. Once Big Bang Theory gained ascendancy, the idea of a Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation was generally accepted by all astronomers & cosmologists. What is CMB? Per them, it’s the residual ‘glow’, as it were, of the primordial ‘Big Bang’. It’s more complex than this, but we’ll not weary the poor reader with arcane observations, explanations and mathematics. The point is, by the late 20th century, the great majority of them took CMB as ‘proof positive’ of the truth of the Big Bang. Impossible to counter? Not at all. As a geocentricitist, I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. This takes time and careful thought. I do, though, insist that smart geocentricitists can come up with perfectly plausible explanations for the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. E.g., in Scripture, what do we find in Genesis? Um hm. The first thing God formed was electromagnetic radiation (EM) when, on the first day of creation, He said, “Be light made.” (Genesis 1:3b DRC) This, by the way, is BEFORE God formed the sun, the moon and the stars on the FOURTH day of creation. Getting it? This light formed initially on the FIRST day of creation was bright enough to make the first day. Nonetheless, it wasn’t light radiating from sun & stars, or a reflecting moon!


However we may be able (eventually) to explain it satisfactorily in physical terms (without, we caution, pretending that this physical explanation denies its miraculous nature!), what do you suppose resulted from this initial burst of brilliant light so long distant in the past, on the first day of creation? Excellent, my astute & brilliant reader. There’s no great difficulty in surmising that it then continued, as millennia slipped by, into a residual glow which, at this point in time, is perceived as the CMB. That is to say, a brilliant first light waned, weakened and ‘stretched’ --- i.e., red shifted --- into the much lower frequency and lower amplitude Cosmic Microwave Background that we see today with our amazing technological tools. Proven with certainty? Of course not. It’d take a whole bunch more study, by real Catholic scholars that are highly trained, to establish this with moral certitude. Yet perfectly plausible and intelligently believable? Surely. Only Modernistic, Darwinistic & acentristic prejudices would dare say otherwise.


Because they’ve got a big huge philosophical & religious axe to fiercely grind.


One that doesn’t like a Creator and demonically loathes Roman Catholicism.


I don’t have that axe, though. Do you? If not, then let’s continue onward.


For what did today’s astronomers begin to discover about the CMB by the end of the 1900s, essentially confirmed without any doubts by the first decade of the 21st century… and affirmed with increasing solidity on into the 2010s? That the CMB is neither utterly homogeneous nor directionless. Say what? The CMB is structured, and this structure is most definitely directional. Beware, though. By saying it is structured, we are NOT in any way referring to the tiny little inhomogeneities (read: not quite totally smooth and identical everywhere you look) that Modern cosmologists took for granted, expecting they’d find so as to be able to pretend to ‘explain’ how stars & galaxies gradually ‘evolved’ into existence as minute variations in mass & gravity drew them together. Contrarily, we are talking about subtle yet gigantic anisotropies in the CMB structure which horrify these Modern cosmologists, defying Darwinistic theory and their ability to pretend to explain how it could be. And what is this horrifying anisotropic structure to which we refer? We kid you not. They literally call it the AXIS OF EVIL’. Literally!


E.g., in 2006 eminent theoretical physicist & cosmologist Lawrence Krauss stated:


“But when you look at [a] CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sunthe plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. THAT WOULD SAY WE ARE TRULY THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.” (Part of interview with Lawrence Krauss, Ph.D., as posted at on 7 July 2006. Article entitled “The Energy of Empty Space That Isn’t Zero”. Article retrieved on 5 August 2018, and again retrieved on 22 May 2019 for the purposes of this small book, at All emphases & annotation added.)


Understanding why Mr. Krauss and his academic comrades are so appalled?


Now, when somebody calls something ‘evil’ --- and they’re not just being facetious, jesting --- then something big is going on. ‘Evil’ means that something is seriously not right, and seriously dangerous & deadly. And yet this is Modernist scientists talking. Not traditionally religious people, who easily identify what they believe to be good in contrast to what they believe to be evil. So how is it that Godless astronomers & cosmologists call this anisotropic phenomenon in the CMB an axis of evil? Eh? Oh, granted, it’s at least partially tongue-in-cheek. But not wholly. They really are disturbed. To them, it’s evil.




You see --- and without getting too complex for hapless readers who are not trained in astronomical lingo, theories & mathematics --- as our technology has increased, and tools for observing the CMB gotten fancier & better, we’ve started to ‘tease out’ the subtle yet real structure of this phenomenon. And guess what? We didn’t just find tiny but random fluctuations in the fine structure of the CMB, thereby leading, naturally, to explanations for how stars, galaxies, clusters & superclusters formed, think Darwinistic scientists.


No. To the contrary, we found subtle yet real variations that form dipole, quadrupole & octupole (sometimes spelled ‘octopole’) axes in the CMB. Axes, by the way, is plural for axis… meaning, more than one axis, or ‘pole’ that is directional and thus pointed toward a very particular point or place. Now this by itself is surprising to them. The horrifying part, however? The part that makes them call it ‘evil’? They think the CMB extends to universe’s ‘edge’, untold billions of light years away. Vast it is. We’ll not argue how distant. We merely note this --- that this vast CMB radiation phenomenon, with odd ‘poles’ or directional ‘anisotropies’, is aligned with the plane of our ‘solar system’. Specifically, with the ecliptic. (The ecliptic is the narrow band of the sky through which the sun, moon & planets appear to move. It also includes the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac.) Specifically, in relation to the plane of the ‘solar system’ and the ecliptic, the top half of the CMB is ever-so-slightly --- yet truly! --- ‘cooler’ than the bottom half. What’s more, the quadrupole (4-pole) axes and octupole (8-pole) axes of the CMB are only a very few degrees apart (out of 360˚ total in a circular sky!) and are also aligned with the bottom/ top ecliptic divide, or cosmic arrangement & structure. Savvy? Fathom the upshot?


There is NO REASON AT ALL that this should be the case, evolutionarily speaking.


From the point of view of cosmological Darwinists, this is a hideous inexplicability.




Cosmological Darwinists presume, out of nowhere, their precious & so-called ‘Copernican Principle’. Meaning, they assume, out of thin air, following the lead of Nicolaus Copernicus --- the celebrated mid-2nd millennium astronomer who pioneered heliocentrism in defiance of ancient versions of geocentrism --- that the earth is situated in no special place in the universe (like the center!) and hence we earthlings are not at all privileged observers of the cosmos from a special place (such as the center!). Got it? This is why the CMB dipole, quadrupole & octupole axes are an axis of evil to all these acentrist astronomers, and why they are horrified, appalled & perplexed. They won’t say it straight out in public --- they perpetually couch their terms in difficult-to-plumb lingo for an average person who sees or reads something about it in the mainstream media --- but the implications are real, and their fear is palpable. They know very well, leastwise the most intelligent & honest of them, that this calls into question everything they have been saying for centuries now. The earth is not at the center of the cosmos! And yet, if this is true, then how can the unfathomably distant universe mysteriously align with earth’s ecliptic, the plane of the sun, moon & planets around the earth, and our tiny perspective on earth looking out into the vast cosmos? How can this be?!?!?!?


There is no simple, truly believable & very obvious explanation for them.


Unless they admit the truly obvious, highly believable and simple truth:


That the earth is at the center of creation. Because God made it this way.


Only then does an anisotropic CMB, with dipole, quadrupole & octupole that is mysteriously aligned with earth’s ecliptic, and the sun, moon & planets, along with Twelve Signs of the Zodiac, make any real sense. Only then can we explain how its arrangement is plainly & undeniably aligned with the tiny little earth we call home.


Ernst Mach led the way, more than anyone else in recent times, in viewing inertia as explicable in relation to the distant collective mass & gravity of the far away cosmos. Relativistic physicists insist blindly, based on Einstein’s ‘speed limit’ of the velocity of light or ‘electromagnetic radiation’ (EM), that gravity, too… whatever it is and however it works… is limited to the speed of EM in a vacuum. This is another of their out-of-thin-air assumptions. Set aside ‘sacrosanct’ relativistic physics and there is never ‘reason’ for presuming this. In fact, certain maverick scientists performing certain daring research have found excellent reasons to believe that gravity --- whatever exactly it is and how, precisely, it works --- travels at multiple orders of magnitude beyond the speed of light through a vacuum, thereby linking the most distant universe with us in a matter of mere seconds, or microseconds, or nanoseconds, or femtoseconds (quadrillionths of a second), or even attoseconds (quintillionths of a second), etc., etc. No one really knows for sure… yet. But maybe, if no longer needlessly blinded by relativistic physics, smart Catholic scientists could figure it out. Or perhaps maverick physicists, in spite of not being Catholic, could figure it out and Catholic scholars could learn from their research.


I don’t really know for sure at this point in time. I do know this, nevertheless:


That it makes sense that Our Creator set up the cosmos as a bound whole.


And that binding thing, what ties us together, is enigmatic gravity.


A gravity that traverses the cosmos much faster than we think.


The upshot? Mach inadvertently reintroduced the idea that it’s not ‘unthinkable’ to think of the earth as at the center of everything. He himself didn’t believe this. Nevertheless, he pointed out the logical and the obvious --- that only the collective mass & gravity of the universe can really begin to satisfactorily explain motion & inertia. And that, imagining earth to be at the center of a revolving ‘disc’ of celestial objects (not that he truly thought the distant stars to constitute a disc, but it simplified computations hugely), you not only explain inertia & motion much more satisfactorily, but, too… and shockingly, for the cosmological Darwinist… demonstrate how a cosmos revolving around the tiny earth daily explains all relational motions, as seen from or on earth, just as adequately as heliocentrism or acentrism. A realization that dovetails perfectly with geocentrism.


There’s lots of other demonstrations --- experiments, observations & logic --- that maintain geocentricity as the closest-to-the-truth about the structure of our universe. Notwithstanding, we’ve just examined, quickly yet intricately, three powerful proofs regarding the accuracy & actuality of the form of geocentrism often called geocentricity. The Michelson-Morley experiment, the quantized red shift of quasars, and now, the very odd & inexplicable (for a cosmological Darwinist…) alignment of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and its dipole, quadrupole & octupole anisotropies, with the earth’s ecliptic… the sun, moon & planets… and the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac.


My dear soul, if honest, this morally requires you to re-examine your assumptions.


Most of us have bought into heliocentric or acentric thought because of, first, scholars & universities touting it; then extensive media coverage talking as if it couldn’t be doubted; and, finally, compulsory public education teaching us, as children, as if it is ‘irrefutably’ true. This is a ruse. I’m sure most of us have simply been dupes. That is, unwittingly trusting what our elders, teachers or leaders say. But there’ve also been snakes.


Namely, people purposefully shoving this down our throats for an agenda.


This agenda is to ‘de-throne’ earth from the center, simultaneously ‘enthroning’ an angelic being of ‘light’ as the ‘ruler of the heavens’, and, at the same time, teaching us to believe that humanity is ‘free’ to believe & do whatever we want to believe & do, as if there is no Creator, or no Creator Who cares what we believe & do, and as if there is never a consequence for our selfish --- and self-serving --- mortal choices on earth.


It’s time for that fantasy to disappear. Indeed, to return to the ravenous Pit of Hell.


Believe as you wish. It’s your prerogative in this little mortal existence of ours.


Yet your choices here on earth… or anywhere in the cosmos… will have everlasting repercussions. They already have had centuries-long repercussions on earth in our tiny mortal lives. Lives that, however tiny & mortal, are meant to merge with Our Creator in Eternity --- if we make the right choices. We are in a Cosmic Theatre. Earth is at Center Stage. The angels & saints above watch us with the most intense of interest & love.


Will you remember your lines? Or will you flub them? It takes lots of rehearsal.


But eventually the opening night occurs, the curtain rises, and it’s show time.


Actors & audience are bound into a whole when the play is performed well.


But there’s a phantom in this opera, too. One who craves the limelight.


He hates that we’re center stage. He tries taking the action offstage.


He hides in the orchestral pit, or the rigging of the lights above.


Waiting for the opportune moment… to disrupt the action.


But Our Director long ago planned for these contingencies. He designed the Theatre, making everything for us, the actors. He wrote a play for us, showing us how to portray Him on the stage. Every single actor, whether following His Instructions & Directions or not, plays into His Vision, His Master Script, winding up fulfilling His Masterpiece even without intending to. Meanwhile, they do so with complete & utter free will. Freely in defiance of Him, the Director, they nevertheless freely --- and unintentionally --- do exactly as He envisioned & foretold. This is the Director we serve. This Our Maker.


He made all the cosmos --- the cosmological theatre --- to center upon our earth.


Even light itself, a residual Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, says so.


And the gravity of our  roles. All Heaven sees our entrance, awaits our exit.


Lights, curtains, action! Audience is enthralled; and a phantom broods.


Will we ‘defy’ gravity, following the CMB poles into Heaven?


Or will we plummet, the gravity of our sins a final sentence?


The phantom’s opera, or work, is a defiance of Our Maker.


And Our Maker did not make us to plunge like a phantom.


+++ 7. Ascension & Assumption +++

(Ascending the Perfectly Divine)


Our Creator made us to rise. We are meant to be with Him, in Heaven, forever.


Literally, to climb the ‘Ladder of Jacob’, as beguilingly & mysteriously told in the dream of the ancient patriarch, St. Jacob, in Genesis 28. Wise Roman Catholics understand this Celestial Ladder to mean Jesus Christ, the God-Man, Our Lord & Saviour. Or, to be really precise, the Sacred Flesh of Christ derived from His Immaculate & Celestial Mother, the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary --- well, then, this Phi-Spiraling Heavenly Ladder is Her, She the Gate to Heaven: through Her, in Him, we save our souls. Accordingly, the real physical location of Heaven is reached through Her in Him.


You can take this to be merely metaphorical. In recent centuries, during historically modern times of the past five centuries, that’s what more & more people, still calling themselves Catholic, have done. Why? Is it infallibly defined by the One True Church as such? Has God via His Singularly Roman Catholic Religion taught us to believe this is so, as if it were ‘impossible’ or ‘perilous’ to dare to think otherwise…? PATENTLY NOT. Ancient Catholics took it at face value. They knew it is poetry; but real, too.


That is to say, while they knew the Jacobian Dream to be an allegory --- something signifying an important lesson under the guise of parable --- they DIDN’T ‘explain it away’ as nothing but meaningless ‘symbolism’ amounting to nothing real or actual. To the contrary. Ancient Catholics were almost invariably geocentrists (if not always!) and they took allegories like this quite seriously in the plain sense (read the tens & tens of thousands of pages of the early Church Fathers if you don’t believe me). It is we the moderns who deviate from that understanding of theirs. This includes Catholics of relatively recent times. Whether or not still truly Roman Catholic Whole, Entire & Undefiled, the self-styled Catholic since c.1900 has bought into heliocentrism.


To wit, our earth is nowhere special… we’re not the center of the universe.


This has been occurring since the 1600s. I mean, who do you think first pioneered heliocentrism during our times? Right. Primarily Catholic scholars. Yes, it spread to others beyond Catholic countries or circles of acquaintance. Yet this fixation with the idea of a de-centralized earth took hold of increasingly larger numbers of scholars, till, whether thinking of one’s self as Catholic or not, it became a flood with the advent of Modernist leaders’ compulsory public education by the late 1800s. By this point, pretty much all Roman Catholic scholars, scientists & theologians had capitulated to acentristic thinking everywhere. Now, most of us lack the training & logic to analyze ideas properly. Thus, I don’t act like a nasty Catholic fundamentalist (CF) and accuse these Catholics of ‘heresy’ just because they’ve been naïve and simplistically believed the heliocentrism or acentrism they were being taught as ‘fact’ in the past one or two centuries. Nevertheless, it does cause some serious problems and raise some serious questions. For instance, we consider that Jesus ascended into Heaven in the sight of His disciples. Alright. Think about it. To where did He go as they watched Him physically ascend? (Refer to Mark 16:19, Luke 24:15 & Acts 1:6-11 for the scriptural details). Or, e.g., Queen Mary was gloriously assumed into Heaven, as Holy Mother Church quite infallibly declared to Roman Catholics in 1950 via Pope Pius XII. Alright. Think about it again. In Her Immaculate & Revived Body, to where did She go, to where was She assumed?


Do you see the dilemma? As far as I can tell, no one ever ponders this.


And if unpondered, then a dilemma never solved. Indeed, like a man with a broken leg, ambulating with help of crutches, yet not realizing his infirmity --- thinking it his natural condition! --- so are Catholics spiritually, without realizing it, presuming --- literally not thinking about it! --- that their broken cosmology is their (super)natural condition.


So let’s actually THINK ABOUT THIS, shall we? Let us reason it through.


If earth is not at the center of creation, then ‘up’ from earth is not really ‘up’ in the ultimate sense. Viz., in the cosmic sense, in the sense of the whole cosmos having a direction that can be called, literally, up. Rather, we’ve the disconcerting & ridiculous image of King Jesus & Queen Mary floating up into the air, high up into the atmosphere, far out into space, and then… what? Aimlessly hover or wander over to Venus? Or Alpha Centauri, the star system supposed to be nearest to our sun? Or the Andromeda Galaxy? I mean, Their very real & physical Bodies, along with their very real & animating Souls, must inhabit Some Place, right? Well, where is This Place? And how are They, or any Catholic saving his or her soul, then reunited with a glorified, immortal body, to truly ascend or assume up into Heaven, when, after leaving the earth’s atmosphere and it’s sphere of influence, there really is no ‘up’ from that point on? Do you get it? Where is Heaven? What frame of reference are we using? Or do you not believe that Heaven is really a place, with real physical location, in which very real & physical body, along with animating soul, can inhabit it? If so, then I seriously question your Catholicity.


Well, that is, assuming you’re truly a Roman Catholic person to begin with.


You can mince words and call Heaven a ‘state of existence’ --- whatever that is, whatever this supposedly existing ‘state’ is, and however silly it is to think physical beings can be ‘somewhere’ that is really ‘nowhere’ --- but don’t expect a thinking person, who is logical & honest, to buy into an ‘explanation’ that actually explains nothing.


The point remains. We’ve real bodies & souls, requiring real places to reside. And Heaven is a true Catholic’s Destination, provided we persevere in This One True Faith, and die in the state of grace. So Heaven must be a Real Place capable of accommodating real glorified bodies & beatified souls. If not, then physicality doesn’t mean anything. Which is a crock. Any ancient Catholic knew that, despite the glorified body’s newly acquired abilities, this DID NOT THEN INEXPLICABLY ‘OBLITERATE’ ITS AUTHENTIC PHYSICALITY. In other words, a physical body --- whether it be glorified or unglorified --- is made, by God’s Will, to reside in a physical location.


Again, it doesn’t seem to me that most people think about this.


Not even those who are Roman Catholic Whole & Entire.


And, if they do, they either don’t think clearly or else make false assumptions. In any case, they vainly & failingly try to ‘reconcile’ two different & opposed worldviews: the false Religion of Modernism vs. the true Religion of Catholicism. Which one wins? Guess. For the last century or two it has been New World Order Modernism.


This is what living during the Great Apostasy means for us today.


Namely, a horrific spiritual confusion and love of religious lies.


It’s always been this way, even during the ‘best’ of times, with real Roman Catholic nations and real Roman Catholic prelates. Roman Catholicism is the One True Religion which comes from Above, not Below, and there is no true peace between up Above and here Below. We can fantasize from time to time, pretending it’s possible to ‘reconcile’ distinct worldviews. But it’s just a fantasy. As Jesus told us while on earth, certainly people will hate real & good Catholics since the latter belong to Jesus (John 15:18-21), and never to this world. And it’s Jesus in us that they hate --- not merely us ourselves. This includes all bad Catholics. They as well hate all good Catholics. You savvy?


It’s simply worse now due to the Great Apostasy. Lines are drawn more sharply.


Because modern science is not just ‘science’. It is very often a religion disguised as ‘science’. Accordingly, modern scientists don’t simply make natural discoveries and devise natural theories. They dare to originate supernatural theories, explanations & ideas that veer into the religious. This is precisely what today’s ‘scientific’ theories or explanation of cosmological origin, structure & destiny amount to. It is never merely science. It is the material & natural mixed intoxicatingly with the supernatural & religious. They dare to ‘explain’ what they can’t really ‘know’ all on their own.


Why? Again, guess. Yes, correct --- because they hate Roman Catholicism.


Forsooth, they hate anything traditionally religious, concerning creation.


Therefore, the Religion of Modernism must have its ‘creation myth’.


And so it is. Heliocentrism or acentrism is part of their ‘genesis’.


And, per them, our earth must NOT be cosmically central.


I have no need for this myth. Do you? I find it to be poppycock. How about you? Nonetheless, perhaps you’re offended at my honesty (bluntness). Then ask yourself --- why? When toes get stepped on by a weighty person, they get hurt. Has someone stepped upon your metaphysical toes? Smart people learn to keep their feet out of harm’s way. Were you not expecting the danger? Different kinds of people have different kinds of feet, some of which are deformed to a certain extent, causing problems. What kind of metaphysical feet do you have? Lots of human beings nowadays --- particularly the highly educated type --- have metaphysical feet desperately wanting fully ‘natural’ ground for walking upon. Are you one of those human beings? Such persons see ‘supernaturality’ as anathema. Is this how you are? You might gravitate toward Catholicism, whilst finding what I dare to say very disturbing. I thus ask you, incredulous, “Are you sure you’re Catholic? Loving truth above all things?”


Then your toes should be fine. Unless you’ve got deformed feet.


And you’ve the audacity to walk in supernatural territory.


The line between the natural and the supernatural is not as sharp & delineated as humanity likes to think… if they think about it at all. It’s like a paper thin wall. You touch it with your finger. And, pop! The finger pokes through with barely a thrust. It could even be accidental. Although, with an All-Knowing Creator, there really is no such thing as the ‘accidental’ in our modern sense of the word. The Triune God of the Catholic Church knows everything there is to know, including that which we call the past, present & future. As human beings we’ve free will, truly. Yet truly He knows how we’ll employ that free will. And, in the end, everything goes as He intends --- without vitiating our freedom of will. All things work together for good for those that trust Him. (Read: Roman Catholics, the real & good-willed kind.) Not so much for the distrusting.


We trust you are capable of trust. In Him, I mean. The Triune Catholic God.


If not, and He steps on your metaphysical toes, it’s going to hurt. Badly.


Because there is nothing & no one weightier than the One True God.


That’s what we’re doing right now. Taking a walk with Our Maker.


We used to walk with Him daily in the Garden of Paradise, till we got kicked out. Becoming a real & good Roman Catholic is learning how to walk with Him all over again, our properly formed feet headed in the direction of that lost Paradise. But you can’t get there if you don’t know the Way. And this is a big cosmos. You’ll need to peruse signposts. And, first, you’ll need to be able to read them. This short book constitutes a lesson in how to do so. That’s right. The ultimate walkabout, mate.


Think you’ll have a g’day? Then learn to walk with God’s Three Persons.


Keep an eye on His ‘Feet’. Follow Them. There are ‘six’ in total.


Hm. That’s our number, isn’t it? The Number of Humanity.


Better yet. As you learn to walk with Him, strive to see His Face. Not too quickly. Nobody’s ready automatically --- no matter how good a Catholic to start --- to see the Trinity’s Face. Ah, but the Second Person of God became a Man, didn’t He? Yes. Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary. We can look upon Him and not instantly die. The Church’s first pope, St. Peter, looked upon His Face while walking upon water during a raging storm. Think we might be able to do the same? I’m here to tell you that you can. There’s not been a horrible storm like we endure now, the Great Apostasy. Yet we need not sink.


God’s Spirit “moved over the waters” at the very beginning. (Genesis 1:1-2 DRC)


Ever wonder what these “waters” were? We’ll learn about them in a little bit.


Every day of creation --- of which there were six (yes, that number once more) --- accomplished a task in structuring our cosmos, the world within which we live for an evanescent time. Upon making light on the first day, Our Maker, like a surveyor, traced out points of reference with light itself. This is why the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is shockingly anisotropic and centered upon our tiny little earth. Because we are His Gem. We are the Jewel Beyond Price, the Treasure for which He is willing to pay the Highest Cost in order to procure. All light --- EM (electromagnetic radiation) --- paid Him homage that first day, and He, the Maker, divinely envisioned us, merely created, in His Holy Image. This is why we are beautiful. This is why, disfigured by rebellion, He pours Himself out like a Sacrifice of Wine, His Own Blood, for our redemption. He placed us at centrality, light itself being the points of reference initially, giving all creation, His Handiwork, a frame of reference by which it may link & move.


In the beginning, God’s True Religion was, literally, written in the heavens.


Even at the very beginning… when only light was there and visible. We know with present physics how light is a wave. (Yes, true, physicists love to say light is a wave / particle ‘duality’. Yet we’ll not get into this here. Suffice it to say that, comprehended correctly, wave patterns can look like, and evince, particles or a particle-like behavior. Or, put a bit differently, particles are simply resonant phenomena, i.e., standing waves.) Consequently, when God spoke light into existence, saying, “Be light made…”, He made the primeval matter of creation, which He first called into existence out of nothing (see Genesis 1:1), to undulate, i.e., to wave. And hence set up patterns into existence all through our vast cosmos. (Genesis 1:3 DRC) Night & day, dark & light, began the enormous universe we find ourselves in until this moment. The cosmos shone.


On the second day, God separated the “waters”, putting a “firmament” (Genesis 1:6 DRC) between the waters below, and the waters above. Do you know what ‘firmament’ means? In ancient Hebrew, it signifies something ‘stretched out’ and ‘thin’. This is really a pretty good, and basic, description of what we call ‘space’. For how do we describe this ‘space’ that is ‘out there’ beyond the earth’s atmosphere? Correct. It’s a ‘vacuum’. I.e., a lot of ‘nothing’. True, quantum scientists like to enthuse about how space is practically ‘frothing’ with so-called ‘virtual particles’ --- but this is a lot of interpretation based on nothing much (no pun intended). The equations of quantum mechanics don’t ‘demand’ scientists to interpret them as ‘saying’ there are tons of ‘virtual particles’ popping in & out of existence constantly. It’s simply what they want to believe the equations ‘say’. Why? Because then they can pretend, via virtual particles once in awhile, how whole universes pop into existence randomly & magically, that, mysteriously & inexplicably, stick around for a few seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years, decades, centuries, or millennia, long enough to ‘make’ a universe or two or three --- hence the ‘multiverse’ --- and, oh. By the way. In doing so, we ‘do away with’ and ‘dispense with’ the need for any kind of a Creator. Supposedly. As if make-believe and fairy tales are believable for real adults. But, then, not all adults are equally mature, are they? Sometimes, even, an adult can be perfectly mature about many things, yet… oddly… get really & strangely immature about one particular thing. Like a cosmos which inexplicably pops into existence for no reason at all, purportedly ‘making’ itself and everything in it.


Nifty, eh? Indeed. Hell bent to believe it, one can almost make it seem sublime.


In reality, try being an astronaut far out in space and take your helmet off. Then try breathing. Finding yourself short of breath? And in spite of all those ‘virtual particles’? Yup. That’s the reality. There’s a whole lot of nothing in the vacuum of space. So much you can’t breathe without a helmet and a pressure suit (read: spacesuit). Ergo why they wear spacesuits. Because if you don’t, then you die. (Not instantly. That’s a myth. You could survive for a minute or so in the vacuum of space without a helmet on. And very extreme heat or cold is just as likely --- maybe more likely --- to kill you first, before suffocating from lack of air.) The point? This is where we learn about the “waters”.


Because it’s this thin, vacuumous & stretched out “firmament” which God uses, on the second day of creation, to separate the “waters” spoken of in Genesis 1:2 (DRC), before He makes light on the first day of creation, from the waters above and the waters below. So what is this thing called “waters”? Is it real water, or everyday water like we drink in daily life? I’d not be so bold as to say it couldn’t be, in some way. On the other hand, it is well established in the science of chemistry that everyday water consists of two atoms of hydrogen (atomic number 1) per every one atom of oxygen (atomic number 8). Which, incidentally --- if you’re paying attention --- is a perfect, double octave (8-1=7). This curiosity I find impossible to believe is a mere ‘chance’, as if Our Triune Creator just ‘happened’ to make it so based on a whim or sheer randomness. The symbolism of such octaves is everywhere one looks carefully in the cosmos, and God started everything by means of water, flooded the earth with water, begins human existence in the water of a mother’s womb, and begins human existence again --- rebirth, spiritually speaking --- with the holy, sanctified & Christ-empowered water of baptism. One the number of God’s Divine Unity and His Unity with His Own, Seven the number of His Divine Trinity and His Trinity with His Own, Eight the number of His Divine Ubiquity & Infinity and His Completion with His Own. What’s more, if we add the watery constituents’ atomic numbers totally (8+1+1=10), we get what? Ten. Which, incontestably, is a number linked to man (our decimality), as is six (speaking apocalyptically). Oh… and eight minus one minus one does equal… six.


Yes, incredibly necessary water is also, as it were, incredibly symbolic.


Yet I think the “waters” of first creation are something that, whilst connected very profoundly to everyday water, transcends & precedes daily moisture in an essential & elementary way. That is, just like water, it is formless. Or, put differently, it assumes whatever form into which it is put. Likewise the primeval “waters”. They are, so to speak, ‘matter’, but matter that is formless. Or --- to put it another way again --- matter waiting to be put into form, so to speak. (Sorry, but it’s hard speaking about that which we haven’t the language to adequately describe, or defies our minds’ ability to wholly grasp at a fundamental level.) The attentive reader will recall we spoke in passing of primeval matter just above. And till God spoke light into existence, a primeval deep lacked any ‘shape’ or ‘structure’. It was truly the quintessence of the ancient Greek’s ‘chaos’… that ‘mythological’ beginning in which they paganistically believed, awry merely in that they thought, no more sensibly than today’s Darwinists, that anything comes out of nothing. Or, better stated, that pattern arises out of lack of pattern, form from formlessness. To wit, God truly did begin everything existing from chaos; but ancient Greeks and modern Darwinists conveniently forget God. He’s the former, forming from formlessness. Void of Him, what have we but formless chaos?


So, waters above as opposed to waters below? What’s the significance?


The waters above are formless matter. Waters below, formed matter.


In-between is the firmament, what we call a huge vastness of space.


As Genesis 1:8 notes, God put Heaven in the firmament. That is to say, this vast firmament is where to look for the actual physical location of Heaven. And Heaven’s location is determined --- its frame of reference fixed --- by our earth’s centrality.


Like St. Noe’s [Noah’s] Flood, earth was at first covered entirely by the waters to be found beneath the firmament. With this distinction, of course --- that no physical life yet existed to be destroyed or disturbed by a deluged earth. It is possible, too, in my mind at least, that these sub-firmament waters can be applied to more than what we call ‘earth’, strictly speaking. Namely, that, while earth in the strict sense is absolutely crucial for anyone to comprehend & distinguish as unique in God’s Plan for the structure of our cosmos, this does not then automatically rule out the possibility that other solid orbs relatively near to a central earth could have been part of such sub-firmament water, Almighty God, on the third day of creation, parting these waters both on earth and relatively nearby solid orbs, gathering them into what we call ‘seas’ or ‘oceans’.


Which leads us to the fourth day of creation. For here is where we see a sun.


Forsooth, contrary to most people’s simplistic assumptions --- presuming they even bother reading Sacred Scripture with close attention & real understanding, or that they don’t axiomatically mock it as ‘ludicrous’ and ‘unbelievable’ --- this is when Our Maker saw fit to fashion sun, moon & stars in the firmament. With this proviso… that the moon doesn’t truly, to be precise, shine in the sky. Does it? No, it doesn’t. This moon reflects the sun’s light. Whereas the stars & sun shine light intrinsically. Viz., the light coming from them is intrinsic to them; they really do shine light from within themselves, not simply reflecting what light happens to fall upon them. This is in contradistinction regarding earth’s moon. It doesn’t shine on its own. It reflects light from the sun.


The gist? Where are we going with this? We’ve already made one point.


Which is? That light existed in our cosmos before sun, moon & stars.


In other words, three days went by prior to their formed existence.


Ergo, a day is NOT utterly dependent on the presence of the sun.


However, Genesis 1:14 makes clear God put all these celestial lights in the firmament upon the fourth day. Must this include the moon? Certainly it does today, if we equate ‘firmament’ with what we now, today, call ‘space’. I.e., a tenuous, thin, airless vacuum incapable of supporting most physical life as we know it. Yet back then? Near the start, ’ere a Great Deluge cleansed the earth of horrible rebels & grotesque sin? Not so fast… it’s a surprising thought, I’d guess, for pretty much everyone (assuming you care). Yet not ‘unthinkable’ or ‘impossible’. Since the moon doesn’t shine intrinsically --- and, it seems safe to presume, never shone intrinsically --- then, surprisingly, it’s ponderable that the moon might not have been, exactly speaking, part of the firmament (what we denominate ‘space’ in the sense of ‘way out there in a vacuum’) to start with. Truly, antediluvian life might have been quite different from what we know today, while remaining firmly within the framework of divine creation that we’re examining.


But we’ll get to this point a little later on. Let’s finish off with the fifth & sixth days.


The fifth day of creation was primarily for the making of sea & air creatures. Whether upon earth solely, in the strict sense, or upon solid celestial orbs relatively near to earth but within the cope of a breathable atmosphere in distinction to where a thin, vacuumous ‘firmament’ or ‘space’ begins, God filled the seas or oceans of waters below space or the near-firmament with lots of physical life. Whales, fish, octopi, birds, bees, butterflies… you name it. He’d already put plant life upon the land during the third day of creation, along with the formation of sun, moon & stars. Now the seas & air teem with life, too. (And, need we point out, that with the establishment of oxygen-producing flora, this allowed fauna to have plenty of oxygen for them to breathe, they in turn producing carbon dioxide, as modern chemists call it, so basic to the oxygen cycle of life?)


Bringing us to the sixth day of creation. The Number of Humanity.


Yet it wasn’t just human beings that God formed upon this final day of creation. Assiduously study Genesis 1:24-31. Prior to crafting a living & breathing human creature, Our Creator first stocked the land with all kinds of terrestrial beasts. Why? Because they’re essential to our lives. And not just ‘practically’ speaking, either. As Sacred Scripture very subtly but plainly implies in telling us all about the marvelous & wise Solomon, so-called ‘animals’ are also placed upon earth as parables, their functions & behavior something for curious & sagacious humans to learn from. Do you see? Even Jesus Christ Himself makes this clear. For when He says, in the Gospels, “Consider the lilies of the field,” He is starkly invoking non-human creatures, be they third day flora, fifth day sea or air creatures, or sixth day land creatures --- their function & behavior --- as lessons for us to learn from. (Matthew 6:28 DRC. Refer also to Luke 12:27.) In other words, flora & fauna of the sea, air & land serve us. Both physically… and spiritually.


Nevertheless, prior to the end of creation’s sixth day, God does make His Image.


Us. Human beings. Mere creatures of flesh & blood, with souls to animate us.


Not that only humans have souls. This is a common mistake of modern people, who profess some sort of traditional religion (especially those who style themselves as if ‘christian’, but it has afflicted Roman Catholics as well). The close & attentive reader of Sacred Scripture cannot help seeing proof positive, from Holy Ghost inspiration, how the Lord has given mere beasts souls, in addition to human beings. For instance, read Genesis 9:9-10 or Ecclesiastes 3:21. The distinction, then? What makes us --- human beings --- of more importance than the beasts? Easy. Because we’re made in the Image of God while they are not. Catholic theologians like to say that this Divine Image is more of our soul than it is of the body, yet it does indeed entail the human body, too. In any case, be this bestial soul only mortal or not (Sacred Scripture is clear, too, that animals must face a judgment in the hereafter, thereby directly implying that their souls are not effaced or obliterated or otherwise ‘unmade’ right away, but Catholicism does not require us to believe that they’ll exist as immortals like us… although, to be precise, Catholicism doesn’t require us to deny the possibility of, at a bare minimum, some beasts being immortal, either --- perhaps it depends on whether or not a glorified human wants particular animals to remain in existence as part of his or her eternal pleasures), creatures that are animals, however clever or nifty, cannot rival or exceed man.


We human beings are in the Image of God. They are not. We are the rulers.


Unfortunately, as non-Catholics or bad Catholics, we often rule badly.


Yet we don’t have to. If truly Roman Catholic Whole, Entire & Undefiled --- and determined, however awkwardly, to become a good Catholic --- then we can learn to imitate God’s Mother, the Immaculate & Ever-Virgin Mary, and, through Her, to learn how to be just like Her Divine Son, the Second Person & Everlastingly Begotten Son of the Father. Which, if as real Catholics we die in the state of grace, we will rule with Him & Her as co-heirs with Christ Jesus Our Lord, forever & ever, world without end, amen.


And, having done this successfully, with true humility & tenacity, what then? Why, simultaneously, we have both already begun to climb the Ladder of St. Jacob to Heaven Above (spiritually & religiously), and, with a good death, really do begin to climb up this Celestial Ladder to Heaven Above (physically & literally). How so? Like the angels that St. Jacob saw ascending & descending this Magnificent Ladder (see again Genesis 28), transcending the Heavenly Spheres from or toward a Central Earth, we go rung by rung and sphere by sphere, following the empyrean signposts. Signposts that are both real & physical and symbolic & spiritual. We learn to read these signs --- and follow them.


Now, I’m not a very good Catholic or a very good follower. But I am a Catholic.


And, where I am weak, God is strong. Christ is greater in me than I am myself.


I am --- but only because He Is. He the Ground of Being; I rooted in Ground.


I therefore know that, whatever my failings, I will fight to the death to win.


But not against my fellow human beings. I fight hell’s evil denizens.


I also fight my own corrupt & wicked self, mortifying my flesh.


Other human beings are actually the least of my worries.


This is the Path true Roman Catholics tread. It’s all through us, all around us, and displayed throughout the cosmos like a massive Theatre in the Round. It’s why the Citizens of Heaven watch us with such intense interest & concern (Hebrews 11:39-12:2), and it’s what they see & understand, eager to help us, devoutly wishing for our success. We are religious gladiators, fighting to the death --- our deaths! --- and in death we win. I.e., dying a good death, having fought as real Catholics to the very end, persevering.


Creation is One Big Parable. And this Parable… what it means and what it says, for everyone with ears to hear… is the reason Our Creator, the Triune God of the Catholic Church, structured the cosmos as He did. Remember day one of creation? Wherein He said, “Be light made…”? (Genesis 1:3 DRC) Right. He took formless primeval matter, made out of nothing by His Divine Word, and started an undulation, a massive pattern emanating all through the universe, a Self-Eternal Surveyor, as it were, setting up the markers for everything He was going to sovereignly form in the coming five days.


This is the Purpose of the dipole, quadrupole & octupole of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation), which we’re just getting smart enough to see. Anything with poles --- like the earth’s north pole and south pole --- is dualistic (yes, modern physicists speak of ‘monopoles’, yet they’re really not talking about the same thing we’re talking about here… so, not to the point). As a result, the CMB is actually seven poles altogether. Chance? As I’ve remarked elsewhere --- you know I’m never going to say that. Our Maker does NOT create & form by ‘chance’. Not in the strict sense. (There is a ‘looser’ sense wherein He seems to let ‘chance’ take a role in the formation of creation, but a real & wise Catholic knows that His Omniscience & Omnipotence are in complete knowledge & control of these things.) And what significance seven? Correct. It’s the Number of God, par excellence.


You see, we’re made in the Image of God. And God made the entire cosmos --- our gargantuan creation --- for us. It’s also like His ‘Uniform’ or ‘Vesture’. (Psalm 101:27 [102:27]). The Number of Humanity is six. (Apocalypse [Revelation] 13:18. Note, too, how God formed humanity upon the sixth day of creation.) We’re a little less than Him, so to speak, but made in His Image and thus made to be like Him. The seven light or ‘EM’ poles of the entire cosmos, as revealed in the anisotropic structure of the CMB, bespeaks this Message, this Symbolism… this Parable. He wears creation to show humanity Who He Is, for those with eyes to see, and He displays this vast visible creation, for those with minds to understand, to tell us what our destiny is.


To be with Him. As His Precious Wife. Forever & ever at His Side.


The Beatific Vision. It’s what we’re made for. It’s who we are.


So where is His Highest Heaven and how do we get there?


Ah, the trillion dollar question. The Pearl of Great Price. Where, indeed?


Spiritually, the answer is simple. Put simply, that is. Be Roman Catholic. Truly, i.e., Wholly, Entirely & Undefiled. Physically? Hmmm. The answer is still simple, in a way, but not thoroughly. Now we get esoteric. That is to say, we have to investigate a cosmos, comprehend it correctly, and draw correct conclusions. Necessary to the salvation of our immortal souls? Not necessarily. Yet useful to know, to make us wiser as Catholics? Why, yes, indubitably yes. It would make us more wise. And it is the time to know.


How do I know? Because I’m so smart? No. I am not. But I am here for a reason.


That reason is unfolding, and, as time goes by, during the Apostasy, it is clear.


Clear that we, as real Roman Catholics, start shouting from the rooftops.


I’m shouting… metaphorically. Who will join me? I do not know.


But God does. And, if not mistaken, then others will join me.


Because it’s all about God --- not me. I’m just a messenger. Will anyone else heed Almighty God’s Message? Good! Because I am ill-equipped to tell the message. Others might take the lead and supersede me. An unfortunate occurrence? No, because it’s the Message that matters. Me? Not so much. I’m nothing. I’m a sinner. I’m unworthy.


All I want is to save my soul. Will others save their souls? That’s all that matters.


So, the Message? Let’s get to brass tacks. Let’s make plain what has been hidden. From All of Eternity. It’s time to speak, it’s time to expostulate, it’s time to help our neighbor. It’s time to say what’s needed to be said. Will anyone hear? That’s up to God, and you.


We speak. If what we speak is what God spoke in the beginning, then well & good.


I dare not hope for more. That’s all I want to do; to speak the words of God.


I am not worthy of even such a lowly service. But, oh!, the Utter Gold.


I would traipse through miles of sewage just to gain this Treasure.


Would you? Will you? Do you? Then join me, I beg you.


+++ 8. Ascension & Assumption +++

(Assuming the Immaculately Human)


The Celestial Spheres of Heaven are no ‘myth’. Perhaps paganized peoples in most ancient times occasionally got the facts mixed up, forgetting what St. Adam, Our Former King & Pope, originally taught us --- he himself having been taught, face-to-Face, in the Holy Presence of Our Creator --- or what our almost equally great patriarch, St. Noe, he who survived the Deluge due to God’s Charity and was also Our Former King & Pope despite the descendants of his third & wickedest son, Cham [Ham], trying to supplant him, taught us, preserving much knowledge & wisdom from the pre-Flood ancients. Notwithstanding, as we saw, for instance, from the quantized red shift values of the amazing quasars in our sky, the heavens above really do seem to be arranged as a sequence of concentric circles, each set at a relatively specific distance from our cosmically central earth. And since the heavens really do spin around us, then sequentially concentric circles spin faster the further they are away from us.


Ergo the mysteriously quantized red shift values. Remember this?


Yes. Red shift of EM (that is, light, whether visible or invisible of frequency) is the resulting effect not merely of shining or reflecting objects racing away from us; it is additionally the logical optical resulting effect of shining or reflecting objects racing around us. Get it? This is what scientists call ‘angular momentum’. To wit, rotation and rotation, or angular momentum, just as handily & realistically explains red shift as does ‘expansion’ or celestial objects purportedly ‘racing away’ from us here on earth. The point? With the quantization of quasar red shift values, it becomes apparent that, correctly speaking, it can’t be cosmic ‘expansion’ causing the red shifted EM we’re seeing everywhere we look out into the universe. Au contraire, this universe of ours necessarily must be rotating around us, just as our ancestors taught & believed, our lilliputian earth at the very center. Comprehending? Good. Then let’s continue.


These celestial spheres are the physical ‘rungs’ or ‘steps’ of St. Jacob’s Ladder. Physically speaking, it’s how the good Catholic, dying in the state of grace, climbs Jacob’s Ladder to reach Heaven. And, as we’ve already remarked some chapters ago, Jacob’s Heavenly Ladder is none other than the Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary and God’s Immaculate One, She Who is the Throne of Wisdom upon which He sits, overseeing All of Creation. Yet everything through Her. She is the Nexus which links Heaven & Earth, She the means by which the two are reunited. Hence why He delights in doing everything through Her, His Choicest & Loveliest of Jewels.


As Apocalypse [Revelation] notes, She stands upon the moon, clothed with the sun, Regal Head crowned with Twelve Stars --- the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac, symbolic extraordinaire of Her Cosmic Authority, given to Her by Her Husband, the Holy Ghost, He Who planted the Seed of St. David’s Heir in Her Womb, Jesus Christ the God-Man. He the King Above All Kings, this makes Her, the Mother, Queen Above All Queens. (Apocalypse 12:1) Again, the point? The Twelve Signs [what our translation of the Sacred Scripture calls “stars” (DRC)] of the Zodiac as a Crown upon Her Head are emblematic of the Trinity enabling Her to transcend & rule over All of Creation. Therefore also why She is, most literally, the Celestial Ladder personified.


Every Celestial Sphere of Heaven equates with a Heavenly Orb or Orbs.


The First Heaven is the Moon. Earth’s moon gravitationally bound to us (Luna, the ancient name of earth’s moon, it is but 1/81st the mass of Tellus, the ancient name of earth, and easily within our gravitational ‘sphere of influence’, the gravitational anchor or ‘barycenter’ of the two residing some 1000 miles beneath us, deep in the earth under our feet), it is, as I remark in a recent book, Helplessly Ignorant , as if Luna is Tellus’ highest summit or mountain peak. So, while the First Heaven is not readily attained (recollect how much effort went into building the giant Saturn V rocket that sent astronauts to the moon during NASA’s ‘Apollo Program’), it is not fully separate, Immaculate Mary standing on it thus symbolic of Her Heavenly Authority and the divinely established fact that Our Maker has chosen to put our earth under Her Rule. Initial ‘rung’ or ‘step’ to God’s Highest Heaven then? The Lunar Celestial Sphere… ascending or assuming upward toward Heaven requires us to pass through this area, everything in relation to a Central Earth, the frame of reference that makes it going upward, as opposed to going nowhere and floating around aimlessly in an acentric universe. Starting to put the pieces of the cosmic puzzle together? Very excellent.


Let us move onward, as it were, vicariously climbing the Lord’s Celestial Ladder.


Ancient accounts don’t always perfectly agree about the Celestial Spheres, yet this probably is because they’d either forgotten certain facts handed down from old, or else mixed them up on their own as they adopted not-quite-correct theories of the structure of Our Lord’s cosmos. In any case, based on modern astronomical findings (for, in spite of our Modernistic prejudices, we have, nevertheless, been allowed or enabled to figure a whole lot of things out about the heavens --- we simply often mangle the data badly, frequently misinterpreting in order to pretend to ‘fit’ this data with our Modernistic preconceptions), we may confidently opine that the Second Heaven is Venus. The terrestrial moon is most of the time associated with the feminine in ancient thought. Surprising? That Luna (itself a feminine name in ancient Latin) was called Cynthia, Selene or Diana, all of which are the monikers of feminine pagan moon deities? No. Remember how the Apocalypse, in Sacred Scripture, portrays the true Queen of the Heavens, Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary --- She quite feminine! --- as standing upon the moon. Meanwhile, based upon the very same book, the Apocalypse, we can equate Venus with Her Son, Jesus Christ. (Apocalypse 2:28 & 22:16) But from where did Heavenly Father’s Everlastingly Begotten Son get His Sacred Flesh? Right. Mary. Consequently, it is no stretch of the imagination to say that Venus is feminine.


(Which, by the way, niftily, in a celestial way, emblemizes the Hypostatic Union. Our Creator hypostatically joined the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity --- the Everlastingly Begotten Son --- with the Human Nature of the Immaculate Mary, She Whom He made to be the new & neverending Light Bearer, to replace the rebellious & errant Lucifer, and to be His Heavenly Queen, Her Son truly the Light of This World. That is to say, the two things joined are forever One, lovely Venus the sign of this.)


And so it is. The ancients most often, if not always, thought of this celestial orb, or ‘planet’, as linked to the feminine. The Roman’s Venus is a female pagan deity, and Greek’s corresponding Aphrodite is the same. We’ll not weary the poor reader with yet more references to ancient false gods. We merely observe the pattern of associating this Celestial Sphere with the female. And if you study Chapter 177 of the book, Helplessly Ignorant , in Part 6 , titled “Virgo Virginum? (The Third, an Immaculate)”, then you’ll find plenty of hard evidence showing that Venus is a very, very, very unique planet, stunningly inexplicable to cosmological Darwinists in its attributes, its resonating mechanics of celestial orbit, in relation to earth, tracing out a beautiful ‘mandala’ denominated by the poetic name of --- we kid you not! --- the Rose of Venus.


And what is Queen Mary’s premier flower? Wise Catholics know… the ROSE.


Hence, in climbing the Jacobian Ladder to Heaven, the good Catholic, physically speaking, passes through the Second Heaven, perfect in beauty & attributes, these associations continuing the parable of ‘to Jesus through Mary’. But let’s not belabor overwhelmed readers. The Third Heaven is Mercury. We will not get into detail, but recall, do you, St. Paul’s Holy Ghost inspired words in Sacred Scripture, where he tells about being stoned to death by his fellow Jews and he, whether in the body or out of the body he knew not, then going to the Third Heaven where he heard things spoken that are not permissible to repeat here on earth? (2 Corinthians 12:1-5) Yes. And did you know that our ancestors thought of Mercury (which is what Romans called this pagan deity, Greeks referring to him as Hermes) as invariably linked to eloquence, messages & communication? And, thus, by proxy, to wisdom itself? Indeed, yes. Pagans were remarkably good at mangling ancient truth, sometimes. But shards they still kept.


This is one of them. Catholics refer to Mary as the Seat or Throne of Wisdom.


Perceiving the connection? Climbing the Ladder, it always links to Mary.


The Fourth Heaven is the Sun. Here we cannot resist making a simple observation. Beginning this relatively short book, Geocentricity, is a scriptural quote, comprised of two distinct passages. Shall we review the second one? It has huge ramifications.


“He hath set his tabernacle [placed his temple] in the sun: and he [i.e., the sun], as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber [just like a newly wed husband exiting the spouses’ bedroom] hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way [exults like a giant running the path]: his going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit [circular route!] even to the end thereof [the sun rushes around earth daily]…” (Psalm 18:6-7b DRC)


We repeat:




Now, you can take this to be purely ‘metaphorical’. Yet has Holy Mother Church ruled infallibly in this matter, commanding us that it is only to be interpreted metaphorically, or, in contradistinction, commanding us that it is only to be interpreted literally? To my knowledge, She has not. Ergo, there is nothing wrong with a real Roman Catholic taking this biblical passage in the literal sense. And, literally speaking, what does it actually say? Correct. That God’s Temple is IN THE SUN. Getting interesting? It ought to, if you’ve the piety to care and are truly Roman Catholic and truly comprehend. In other words, if literally true, then human beings for millennia have been able to look up into the daylit sky and actually, literally & truly see God’s Celestial Temple. Astounding? You bet. Delightful? For me it is. It’s just like God to put into plain sight something like this. Whilst oblivious human beings, laboring under its light, are completely in the dark.


Oh, and have you pondered the ramifications of the sun darkening at Jesus’ Death?


(The sun & whole earth darkened: Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33 & Luke 23:44-45.)


Christ clearly told us that His Sacred Human Body is the Temple. (John 2:18-22)


Any wonder, then, at His Death, that the Temple of the Sun would grow dark?


In any case, His Body comes from His Mother, the Star of the Sea. And, as any true Catholic who is wise knows, Queen Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. (See, for instance, Apocalypse 11:19, where this is quietly inferred in connection with the very next verse, Apocalypse 12:1.) And where is God’s Ark kept? Any student of the Bible knows, from studying Old Testament carefully, and how Temple / Tabernacle was built according to God’s explicit design, that His Ark was almost always kept safe and sound within the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, protectively covered by the angelic wings of two seraphim. The pieces of this cosmic puzzle coming together yet more?


Yet we go on. What is the Fifth Heaven and Celestial Sphere? Right, Mars.


Known to the ancient pagan Greeks as Ares, he was their ‘god of war’. Any truth to this long ago memory? Well, consider. Who crushes Lucifer’s serpentine head? Um hm. The Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary, Our Second Eve. She’s not just the Mother of God; not just a Heavenly Queen; not just God’s Highest Temple Priestess; She is a Mighty Warrior, the Greatest of Christ’s Soldiers, and She, along with St. Michael, triumphs over hell.


Where the Sixth Heaven, though? Ah, here we’ve a fascinating mystery.


Because where the sixth celestial orb ought to be, we find asteroids.


And what are they? Cosmological Darwinists want to think them a ‘failed planet’. Accordingly, since they ‘must’ believe that the universe, and everything in it, came together by pure chance, then moons, planets, stars & galaxies ‘must’ have formed over billions upon billions of years, small perturbations in gravitational mass gradually making matter coalesce as the aforementioned celestial objects. Ergo, the asteroids are a ‘planet’ that just didn’t quite make it. Poor thing. It’s condemned now for billions of more years as a ‘loser’. Or, if Modernist humans make it into space and learn how to live, work & prosper there in decades to come, chances are we’ll mine those asteroids and become fabulously rich. Richer than we are even now. These pathetic asteroids are smallish chunks of rock, etc., that tumble chaotically. Yet they do have some valuable and extremely useful metals or minerals. Still, must we buy into Darwinist theory?


Of course not. Maverick scientists have proven very neatly, using mathematics, that asteroids are just as explainable --- and more believably so --- as an exploded planet. “Say what?” exclaims the unsuspecting reader. You see, Darwinists don’t like this idea. Catastrophes smack too much of a Creator punishing bad creatures in His creation, and, anyhow, how is anything supposed to ‘evolve’ successfully over billions of years if this type of thing keeps happening, destroying what is so very slowly ‘evolving’ through the countless eons? This is why astronomers & cosmologists reject this explanation with a kneejerk bias, refusing to take it seriously. And even though the hard mathematics demonstrates that it is entirely plausible and explains what we see better.


So why would the orb of the Sixth Heaven have exploded? I don’t have a totally naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanation. But I’m not a Darwinist, and their pet theorizing is full of holes. Meanwhile, the ‘exploded planet hypothesis’ makes tons of sense, even without full natural or supernatural explanation available yet. Suffice it to say that, being Heaven No. 6 --- the Number of Man and of Our Rebellion --- ’tis exquisitely symbolic, just like God might choose to do… and with the two largest ‘asteroids’ (Ceres & Vesta) having been investigated exceedingly carefully, especially with a long-lived ion-propelled probe called ‘Dawn’, they being spherical and plainly former moons of unfortunate Orb No. 6. Where are we going with this? When humanity became base, wicked & evil beyond belief by the time of St. Noe, it seems most likely that He in response chose to destroy this celestial orb to signify that we --- 6 --- would never triumph and it is how he precipitated the event we remember as the Great Flood.


(This therefore is an ‘apocalyptic’ sign, hence the ‘666’ gently pointed out to you in paragraph just above. Apocalyptic, because ultimate rebellion against the True God & His True Religion. Yet how linked to Mary? She is the Second Eve, undoing what our first mother did. And that was? Apocalyptic rebellion. Mary restores six to rightness.)


To wit, at least one or two or three or more of the chunks (asteroids) of this ‘planet’ plunging toward earth over the course of a year or so, or months, they impacting our earth, this both began the collapse of an extended atmosphere (there are tantalizing hints that air & moisture existed in ancient times all the way out to the asteroid belt; e.g., with Apollo 15, wherein two astronauts landed amidst the Apennine Mountains of the moon, Commander David R. Scott opened the top hatch and took pictures and a pre-survey of the area, reporting, to the astonishment of geologists, that these mountains bore obvious signs of striation --- astonishing, because extensive striation results from sedimentation, which requires air & water!) and the fracturing & eruption of the inner earth. Genesis plainly tells us that torrential rain fell upon the earth for forty days & nights straight. Additionally, it tells the ‘founts of the deep’ burst forth from inside the earth. (See Genesis 7:11-12) Scientists today have, through seismic data, shown that veritable ‘oceans’ exist till this day deep within the earth’s crust or mantle. Yet a forty day torrential rain, without pause? This is difficult to explain, hydrologically, unless terrestrial atmosphere extended far beyond the height it does today, with a higher humidity… akin to tropical moisture… borne in this atmosphere, and the atmosphere literally extending, in some way mayhap, all the way out to the asteroid belt. (We do not pretend that this incredibly giant atmosphere is on earth now --- rather it was ‘captured’ by other orbs in the vicinity over the years or else dissipated totally as the moisture it possessed condensed… perhaps around exceedingly small particles made by planet’s explosion… and then, slowed enough in relative velocity and far enough from the sun, much, if not most of it, catastrophically plunging to flood the earth below.) The point is, only then does it become anywhere near to thinkable that enough water could fall from the heavens, and burst forth from out of the earth, for so long and in massive enough quantity, so as to flood our world some twenty or so feet past the top of highest peak. (Incidentally, anyone skeptically wondering how such air could be out so distant --- millions of miles, tens of millions --- must realize that it would have been moving at orbital speed, hence not inclined to drift toward sun or earth, etc. Furthermore, the planetary orbs, or solar orb, would not have suffered ‘friction’ against the air, as if moving ‘against’ it, as long as both air & orb are moving at the same relative vector.)


Upshot? There is strong evidence --- unpalatable to Darwinist scientists as usual --- that earth itself, in being fractured by the enormous impacts of asteroidal material at the time of the Great Deluge, then splintered earth globally, releasing both tons of volcanic lava & subterranean seas. (The proof of this splintering is twofold: the longest mountain chain on earth is 40,000 miles distant, snaking around the earth’s oceans’ basins like the seam of a baseball; and the separate continents of the earth go together like a jigsaw puzzle. This is not merely true of Europe & Africa in comparison to the Americas, which is something today’s Darwinistic scientists have accepted under the guise of ‘plate tectonic theory’. Naturally --- or, rather, illogically & unnaturally --- they ‘must’ presume the earth’s continents to have glacially moved apart from their original unity over the course of hundreds of millions of years. They also obstinately refuse to admit that the puzzle complementarity includes East Asia & Australia in comparison to west Americas. Obviously, this is again because they cannot afford to admit catastrophism. I.e., catastrophes that occur somewhat routinely, smack of Divine Wrath, and which chaotically play havoc with the millions & billions of years they so desperately need, wherein, essentially, nothing much happens except for molasses slow and gradual, uniformitarian change… the perfect thing for cooking up life by ‘chance’!) These enormous shocks then coincided with an ‘inflation’ --- or expansion --- of the earth. Which expansion we’ll get into a little further on. For now, simply realize that this explains the origin of our earth’s gigantic oceans, covering 70% of the world, in distinction from the still sizable, yet much smaller, seas that first dotted earth. Additionally, it rather adroitly tells us where all this globally flooding water ‘disappeared’ to… the present day gigantic oceanic basins which dominate, internationally, the earth’s surface nowadays. It was not so in Noe’s youth. Indisputably…seas existed then. But much smaller, maybe 10% or 20% total… terrestrially speaking, of earth’s surface. New & cavernous oceanic basins gave a spectacularly perfect & natural place for the displaced waters to settle post-flood.


And, need we point out, how this explains the fact of rain & rainbows after Noe’s Deluge? Speaking in terms of meteorology & optics, rainbows can only transpire if droplets of water are suspended in earth’s air, and large enough for the prismatic effect (however small they may seem otherwise), for sunlight to be broken into the colors of a rainbow. Ergo, unless the rules of physics changed, then an antediluvian world was bereft of rain and these large enough condensed droplets of water. Something Genesis upholds, telling us that four large rivers flowed out of the Garden of Paradise, originating from a single mammoth spring, going all over the earth to water it. (Genesis 2:6-14) Meaning, things were very different then than they are now. Climate was determined primarily through altitude, not latitude. And the entire world, at sea level, was tropical.


But let us move on to the Seventh Heaven. Here, Jupiter is King.


Need we point out the connection to the Number of God?


Which number is seven, in case you’ve forgot. The ancient pagans knew this, too, regardless of a lack of telescopes (so we prefer to believe, leastwise), considering the colossal planet to be the embodiment of their ‘king’ of pagan deities. Interesting, for it truly is the largest of ‘planets’ by far. How would they know this? One thing any wise Roman Catholic may know, though, is this --- how God certainly made the Seventh Heaven, as ‘ruled’ by the Seventh Celestial Orb, to represent He & His Divinity, Omnipotent & Sovereign. This is the King Above All Kings, personified.


And from Whom does He come, as ‘mere’ Man? Right --- Queen Mary.


Any surprise, then, that the Eighth Heaven is Saturn and vividly Hers?


Next largest of the so-called planets, it is undeniably heavenly & beautiful. To see it through a telescope on a clear night is one of the most profoundly moving experiences a human being with an eye for glory can undergo upon this earth. Any surprise, then, that it closely links to the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary? The very name of the 7th day of the week, Saturday, comes from this orb and associated ancient pagan deity; yet, as a real Catholic knows, Saturday inextricably connects to Mary, the Star of the Sea, God’s Queen of the Highest Heavens. The name of the ancient pagan deity suggests plentiful harvests and keeping of time, seasons & harvests. The Eucharistic & Wheaten Heart of Her Sacred Son, Jesus Christ, anyone? Whose day of the week is the one named for the sun --- Sunday, representing the Fourth Heaven. Too, on the north pole of Saturn there lies something seen nowhere else in our solar vicinity, on any planet, or any orb of which human beings know: a gargantuan hexagon, into which two earths could fit, there no believable & intricate reason we can come up with for how this strange polar vortex forms or persists, or, indeed, why we see nothing like it anywhere else our celestial probes have explored & traveled, sending us back images, data & comprehension.


Yet a hexagon is six-sided, isn’t it? And six is the Number of Man, no? Truly.


Is it too much for a true Roman Catholic to suspect that this symbolizes how Mary is God’s Heavenly Gate, through Whom human beings, as good Roman Catholics, may enter the highest of the heavens? Not at all. The symbolism is perfect. And real.


Note, too, how Saturn’s mass is so little dense, overall, that, were it possible to put the Saturnian orb into a vast pool of water, it would float. Star of the Sea? To which we may cling, floating upon the oceanic abyss, walking upon the water no matter what the storm? One so infers. And, let us recollect, how 8 is the octave of 1. Saturn is the Eighth Heaven. What is the First? Why --- Luna, the moon. Upon which the Throne of Wisdom stands. Heavenly & Jacobian Ladder, indeed. She an Immaculate & Celestial Spiral Staircase.


Without further elucidating even higher heavens, where is the Highest Heaven?


We’ll not pretend to say for sure. And if sure, would God allow us to say so?


We merely speculate, then. Intelligently. Based upon many ancient clues.


Innumerable ancient peoples, from all over the earth --- even in the southern hemisphere, and even though what I am going to suggest is in the northern hemisphere of the sky --- have considered the Pleiades to be a very special place in the heavens. When Our Lord answered the longsuffering St. Job’s many complaints, he mentioned these “shining stars”, asking Job if he could join them together. (Job 38:31 DRC) Mentioning also Arcturus, a brilliant red star in the Constellation of Boötes, the astronomically & theologically astute Catholic cannot help asking, “Is God making a purposeful distinction between the two places in the heavens? For, as we’ve said elsewhere, ancient Boötes was the ‘ox driver’ or ‘plowman’, the one supposed to cultivate the fields correctly. Yet he is slightly --- yet shockingly --- astray.” Please see Chapters 175 to 177 in the already mentioned book, Helplessly Ignorant , to more fully understand why. Lucifer the indisputable ‘bearer of light’ (what his Greek-derived name means), it is an allowable theological opinion that God assigned him, first of all at the beginning, to oversee the transmission of light within His creation. Rebelling, and going astray, he wanted to be God, as it were, whilst not imitate God. On the other hand, he can’t deny reality. Only God makes things real. As a result, he deviates ‘slightly’, so to speak, so as to defy God while still acknowledging, and operating within, reality. The point? If God did actually and purposefully juxtaposition the two celestial places for this reason, then this very much does suggest that the Pleiades are the opposite of what Lucifer is, and what Lucifer’s done. To wit, part of Highest Heaven, where serve the loyal angels.


At any rate, many ancient peoples & cultures revered the Pleiades. Too many to make mention of here. We need to tie this book up… not extend it too much further. And while some ancient people counted ‘this many’ stars in the Pleiades, others counting differently, pretty much seven stars are visible to the naked eye. That number again, eh? The single number, more than any other, most closely attached to God Himself, as any student of Sacred Scripture can attest. For instance, the ancient Greeks called them the Seven Sisters. If you look at them via contemporary & powerful telescope, the effect is practically as stunning as the sight of Saturn. They are of the purest blue in color, surrounded in shining clouds, beautiful beyond description. Oh, and their name?


The Greeks called them the ‘Pleiades’ because their pagan mythology told them that these ‘sisters’ were all the daughters of an Oceanid nymph named ‘Pleione’. And what does Pleione mean, in ancient Greek? We are not joking --- the sailing queen’. Pagans often distorted or messed up ancient memories. But they frequently remembered that which is valuable to know. Can any intelligent & honest Catholic not suspect that something vital is remembered here? Who is the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary?


Correct --- She is the Queen of Heaven. And what does her name, Mary, signify, as helpful doctor & early Church father, St. Jerome, informs us? Right --- the Star of the Sea. And do you note the ancient Greek memory of Pleione as being an ‘Oceanid’? This in turn refers to their ancient pagan creation mythology. Specifically, how everything came out of ‘chaos’. We have already remarked that they are partly accurate. God actually did begin creation as a ‘formless void’, His Spirit hovering over the Deep. (Genesis 1:1-2) These primeval waters are, we surmise logically, primeval matter. Initially formed thing from these primeval waters or matter, to which pattern, form, design & purpose are given? Affirmative --- light. And what, later on, did God make, these things shining in & of themselves? Correct, again. Sun & stars. (Recall that the moon reflects… not shines intrinsically.) Let us focus on stars. As a matter of fact, singularly, upon one particular star --- the Star of the Sea. Putting it together?


Who is the Star of the Sea? MARY. It’s what Her Name means. Does a Star shine? Certainly. What else are they for, if not to shine? Yet She is ‘of the Sea’. What Sea is this? It is twofold, in my opinion. She is of the primeval waters, first of God’s creatures to arise, in His Divine Thought, if not in the dimension of time. Indubitably He intended Her to Reign with Him as His Queen. Lucifer, the original light bearer, went astray, the rebel he was revealed in his Original Disobedience. Saints tell us his rebellion began as God revealed to him & his angelic peers that He would make a creature, a mere girl, to bear Him, God Almighty, and then cause Her to be the Queen of Highest Heaven. The devil would not hear of this. One third of his fellow angels agreed. War ensued. They would never bow to such a lowly creature, they vowed. Although, what is the liar’s solemn oath worth? Not much. Nothing, really. And so it is. They fight uselessly.


Yet, secondly, the Sea is the mass of humanity to come over all of history. Mary is positioned upon earth’s moon, standing tall, Her Regal Head towering into the heavens, crowned with the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac (‘zodiac’ comes, however remotely, from the Greek word for ‘life’, by the way), as well as clothed & shining with the sun (from whence Her Son rules most directly over our earth, His Body ---  God’s Temple --- placed within this brilliant orb, Fourth Heaven above us). She is the Mother of the Living… She the Immaculate One, the Second Eve, Who undoes the First Eve’s nefarious Original Sin (St. Adam named his wife ‘Eve’… ‘mother of the living’).


So, Pleione, ‘the sailing queen’? Yes. I think the Greeks preserved something.


Something important, a very imperative memory of ancient teaching.


Can’t prove it. Don’t pretend to have. And it doesn’t ultimately matter. Not to me. Almighty God can & has placed the very real physical location of Heaven wherever Trinitarian Being so deems. He is the Uncreated Creator; I mere created creature. But were I to wager? I’m not a gambler. It bores me. But when it comes to Heaven? Yes. I would be willing to wager that Its Entrance Gate is in the Pleiades. After all, dear Mary really is the Gate of Heaven, no? She is. There is no doubt. Not for a real & good Catholic. The Pleiades is also in the northern celestial hemisphere.


Import? If you read Sacred Scripture very, very, very assiduously --- for example, the prophetic book of St. Ezekiel --- you find that God, and His Appearances or Doings with us mere human beings, especially His Temple, is most often associated with the east and the north. East from whence the sun dawns, His nearest Celestial Temple; north from whence the sun’s Queen rules, She the Gate of His highest Celestial Temple. As well, paying attention to the first part of the scriptural quote at the start of this short tome? Accordingly, “He stretched out the NORTH over the empty space, and hangeth [Almighty God hangs or places] the earth upon nothing…”? (Job 26:7 DRC)


Yes, Sacred Scripture really does say this, and it’s strikingly contemporary.


So, how does a real & good Roman Catholic climb to Heaven Above?


By the Jacobian Ladder, which is none other than Immaculate Mary.


We’ve seen some of these rungs, the steps to be taken physically.


Yet we cannot place our physical feet there with wicked souls.


We can only climb if our souls are pure & holy, as Catholic.


Indeed, it is something we shall never do on our own. We are responsible, with free wills, to will to do what we ought, being true Catholics, and being good Catholics --- especially dying in the state of grace --- but we are bad-willed, often sinners, frequently gravely so. How are we to surmount without assistance? Our Queen, and Her Angelic Cohort, are there to help us. We work out our salvation with fear & trembling (Philippians 2:12). Nonetheless, we humbly accuse ourselves of our sins, imploring Heaven’s Help.


Our Queen is more than willing to help us, and her saintly & angelic cohort. And with Her assisting us, who can fail? Her Eternally Divine Son, Jesus, told us that it is he or she who perseveres unto the end who will save his or her soul. She has His Ear. She speaks, and He is only too happy to please His Mother. With Her as Our Advocate, can we fail?


We do not presume. That is pride. It is why we fear & tremble climbing this Ladder.


Should we fall….? The higher we make it, the greater & more horrific the plunge.


To hell below, at the center of the earth, which is the very center of creation.


Do you wonder, though, about the waters above? I do. What they are?


If the waters to begin with were primeval matter, a formless void, then those waters above, yet unformed, are primeval matter still. How much? I know not. Yet if out there, far beyond our normal experience with distances, and outside the formed universe, as it were, then… well, they are mass and have enormous gravity, effecting our universe in ways I doubt most of us can or ever have comprehended. For instance, the cosmos is spinning, right? Right. If you’re geocentricitist, then this is no big deal. We’ve seen evidence already showing that it is in no way ‘impossible’, or ‘unthinkable’, that a universe is spinning around us, here on earth, at the center. It is very thinkable, and, shocking though it is for Modernistic or modernized people, the evidence points to geocentricity, NOT heliocentrism or acentricity. So what are these formless waters, primeval matter, doing there? What is their purpose? Why did God put them there?


All very good questions. Did you know that gyroscopes precess? Oh, I know. The haplessly befuddled reader is going, “A gyroscope? I think I know what that is. I think. But precess? What in the world is that?” A gyroscope is something round & spinning. Think of a top. It’s round. And it spins. And tops & gyroscopes tend to keep spinning, and keep staying in the same orientation, as they spin. This is why airplanes, ships, spacecraft, and the like, use gyroscopes all the time now to know their positions.


In other words, a gyroscope, once oriented correctly, keeps you oriented since it very strongly resists moving against the vector of its angular momentum. The faster it spins, or the more massive it is, the stronger is this resistance and the better a gyroscope it is for a navigation across space, through the air, or upon the seas. Yet gyroscopes precess, too.


And what is precession? You’ve played with a top, haven’t you? Most of us have, in this part of the world, at least. What happens after you spin the top up and let it go? If done well, the top spins, standing upright, for a good long time. But, then, it starts to slow down, doesn’t it? And as it slows down, it starts to wobble, doesn’t it? Guess what.


This is precession in a nutshell. We’ll not get too complicated for the poor reader.


Nevertheless, what causes precession? Why does a slowing top wobble around?


A physicist would tell you that an applied force to the gyroscopic object initiates the precession, particularly at 90˚ angles (circularly speaking) both before & after to the point of force vector application. Meaning, as the top winds down, some force slowly causes it to topple over --- but not right at once. That’s the unique nature of gyroscopes. Surprising power, and surprising effects, can be found in the behavior of gyroscopes. Now, consider. If geocentricitist, and knowing the cosmos rotates around the earth, whatever does that make the entire universe? Correct. One massive, enormous, brobdingnagian gyroscope. We’re a cosmic top. And we’re winding down.


Acentristic, Modernist scientists like to think the earth is a big spinning top. As a consequence, what astronomers call the ‘precession of the equinoxes’ is caused by a tilting earth (roughly 23.5˚) gradually, ever so gradually over tens of thousands of years, precessing in its orientation to the so-called ‘solar system’ and its plane. What causes the earth’s precession, say they? Why, the combined gravitational attraction of the masses of the sun and the moon. Now put this into reverse --- i.e., invert relative motions --- and concentrate hard. Geocentricity tells us earth isn’t moving… it’s the universe.


So the cosmos is tilted to earth by 23.5˚. Remember? Earth is absolutely central.


God made it that way. Everything else is in relation to the earth, positionally.


Or, put differently, the cosmic frame of reference centers upon the earth.


Hence why we say it’s the cosmos that’s tilted to us, not vice versa.


So what causes the sun to go up and down in the sky --- annually? To wit, why does the sun move north for about half the year to a maximum northern latitude, then go back the other way south for about half the year to a maximum southern latitude? Recall that we tweaked astronomer Tycho Brahe’s hypothesis about the structure of the cosmos so as to have not only the planets circling the sun, but the far distant stars, too. Ergo, we’ve two simultaneous rotations implanted in the motions of the cosmic objects in relation to a central earth: 1) planets & stars, etc., all revolve around the sun, gravitationally bound as a whole, and not gravitationally bound to the sun itself (apart from the planets, of course, which are gravitationally ‘bound’ to the sun itself), the sun simply being at the center of this gravitationally bound, rotating whole; and 2) the sun & cosmos in turn revolving around the absolutely central earth, earth merely at the center of this gravitationally bound, rotating whole, and not in any way seriously ‘gravitationally bound’ to the terrestrial center. So we’ve an ‘off center’ top, called the sun & cosmos, 23.5˚ in complete tilt toward the absolute reference frame of the earth. Need we say it?


This is like a top winding down. What’s the force operating on it, though?


The same thing acentrists like to think is causing the earth to ‘precess’.


Gravity. Except it can’t be the sun & moon, can it? No, it can’t. We’re talking about cosmos itself spinning around the sun. The sun is at this particular center. It can’t be gravitationally working upon itself, causing sun and the cosmos to precess. And little moon is far too small, and weak, gravitationally speaking, to precess the cosmos. So what’s causing the precession? Think. Think, think, think. Oh, yes! We know…


How about the unknowably massive waters above outside a spinning cosmos?


Right you are, my highly astute reader. This primeval matter is the source.


The source of an unimaginably huge mass & gravitational force operating upon dualistically spinning cosmos, around the earth, which causes the tilting, winding-down universe to precess, at a rate undoubtedly thought too amazingly fast by run-of-the-mill contemporary astronomers (if they’d even take geocentricity seriously…), and thus, in turn, causing the sun, every year, to move north and then move south in earth’s sky.


Leading us to a last observation before we tie it all together. Circles have 360˚.


Ever wonder why? Probably not. Yet it’s a question worth asking. Seriously.


It goes back to the ancient Babylonians, not so long after the Great Flood.


So why 360˚? It’s almost, but not quite, the number of days in a year. That is, 365. (Precisely speaking, nowadays, it’s actually 365.2522 days every year. Thus the leap days, required every four years, except every fourth century year that is divisible by 400, to keep the seasons in synch with our traditional conception of the months of the year.) Is there a connection? I suspect there is. Can’t prove it, and can’t tell you for sure, but when the Great Deluge occurred, whatever caused the Sixth Heaven’s Orb to explode --- if the theory is accurate --- was probably cosmic, and even exo-cosmic, in nature. Viz., in all likelihood, suppose I, God supernaturally manipulated the massive waters above… the unformed primeval matter surrounding the universe… and caused giant perturbations within the cosmos, one result of which was the explosion of the Sixth Orb --- planet orbiting the sun between Mars & Jupiter, now inhabited by the countless ‘asteroids’. (Another result of which, I guess, was stretching of the cosmos to bigger dimensions --- like a spinning ballerina slowing as she extends her arms --- which, in turn, then exerted a pulling force upon earth itself, causing it to expand. There also could have been force within earth building up, the two forces together causing huge terrestrial expansion.) Prior to this cataclysm, I suspect that earth’s year really was exactly 360 days. Many ancient sources & testimonies strongly suggest that this was exactly the case. Hence, when God manipulated the exo-cosmic primeval matter, this enormous gravitational effect caused --- again, amongst other things --- entire cosmos to slow its rotational speed, a phenomenon that was dramatic, but, humans adhering to custom, and the benefits of a 360˚ circle being quite large, left us an ancient memory, as it were, geometrically, of what the cosmos was like before the Flood. I.e., 360 day years.


Plausible? I think so. And it explains a mystery that has persisted for centuries.


Yet back to more spiritual & religious considerations, and more important.


For notice in the Apocalypse, when God ‘unforms’ the Old Heavens & Earth, He reforming them into a New Heavens & Earth that is without stain or sin? Do you see neither mention of a ‘new hell’ being needed for this New Heavens & Earth, nor the old hell being kept within the New Heavens & Earth, indeed, no longer at the center of our earth? Yes. The Apocalypse is plain. Hell & death are cast into “the pool of fire.” (Apocalypse 20:14 DRC) Where is this Pool of Fire? It doesn’t say.


However, Jesus does reference mysteriously, in the Gospels, an “exterior darkness”. (Please see, for instance, Matthew 8:12, 22:13 & 25:30.) What is this Exterior Darkness? There is only one explanation that makes sense to me. Both the Pool of Fire and Exterior Darkness are spoken of as being places of finality. That is to say, once put there, you’re never coming back. So, are St. John’s ‘Pool of Fire’ and St. Matthew’s ‘Exterior Darkness’ --- both of them simply reporting Jesus Christ’s words --- identical?


I believe they are. If demons & damned are in a ‘heavier space’, as so much circumstantial evidence and occult knowledge insists (‘occult’ in the sense of its literal meaning, ‘hidden’, and NOT in the evil & dangerous sense of ‘sorcerous’ or ‘demonic’), then the ‘pain of sense’ which is a part of eternal damnation can be explained by them being so dense, so opaque, that even a single tiny ray of God’s Glory reaching them would cause immense burning & resultant agony. Yet whether or not this theory be accurate, what is a ‘waters above’, the primeval matter? Right. Formless. Now, be courageous and think it through. What would happen if formed creature is put in continuous contact with a formless void, primeval matter dark & chaotic?


Correct. It could result in a kind of ‘burning’, an agony unfathomable.


In any case, there would be no light like we know it, only darkness.


Unless, of course, God lets a tiny ray of His Glory pierce through.


We’ll let the poor reader ponder upon that, an “exterior darkness”.


In the meantime, let us recollect something far more uplifting. For Jesus Christ the God-Man ascended Bodily into Heaven by His Own Power on Ascension Thursday. And the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary, Our Immaculate & Heavenly Queen, was assumed Bodily into Heaven by the Power of Her Son, as Infallible Definition & Feast of Assumption teach us. He ascended, She assumed. Good & real Roman Catholics will be assumed along with Her, and Him, if we die in the state of grace. And we will reside, eventually with our glorified physical bodies, forever & ever, in the Real Place of Heaven, seeing God’s Face with our own eyes, for All of Eternity. This is not fantasy. This is not any ‘mythology’. This is the One True Religion, and it is without doubt Saving Truth.


Yet where is up? If the universe is ‘acentric’… no center… then what is up?


That’s the whole point. There is an up because there is a cosmic center.


It’s called earth. We happen to live upon it. For now. For awhile.


But then we’ll die, and, dying, either go up, or else go down.


This is not metaphorical. It is not mere allegory, although allegory is entwined thoroughly, within and without. It is the Truth, and it is the Reality. God structured creation to be linked together and centered upon the earth. Up is away from this earth-center. All the cosmos really is for our benefit. God really did make it, and form it, and structure it, for our existence & destiny. The Celestial Ladder of St. Jacob, that beguiling dream he had in the middle of nowhere, homeless, traveling, in the desert, no idea what in the world would happen to him before it all ended, as told in Genesis 28, is now fulfilled. It is Her. It is She --- the Immaculate One, Phi Personified, Perfect in All Her Measures, Mary a Spiraling Staircase to Heaven Above, She Its Gate, She the Throne of Wisdom, upon Which He Sits, Enthroned, King Above All Other Kings, in the Starry Heights.


This Ladder we climb, with Her Help, if real, good & persevering Roman Catholics.


Celestial Sphere by Celestial Sphere, Heaven by Heaven, we rise, if imitating Her.


So often we fail. I am the worst sinner of all. But don’t ever give up or despair.


For then you will fail, and you will plunge, and you will be outside forever.


Can’t you see Her beckon? Her Smile alone is worth everything…


Everything. Every pain, loss, humiliation & even death itself.


I’ve always cast my eyes above. I wasn’t born Catholic. It took a miracle. But --- childhood onward --- I’ve always gazed at the heavens. Always wanted to know what’s out there. I’ve always wanted to climb the highest mountain around. I’ve always wanted to ascend. Now I know the way to ascend is to be assumed. Into Him, and through Her. What I’ve always wanted is Heaven Itself, God Himself, and His Incomparable Queen.


They want it, too. The saints, angels, virgins & martyrs above. They watch us. With keenest of interests, deepest of loves, they watch, and pray, and seek to help us. They’re there always. If only you could see them. And talk to them. And ask them for everything you need, tell them everything you fear, listen to everything they say, knowing then how to be what you should be. Which is the same thing as saying, ‘knowing how to climb the Celestial Ladder without falling, without failing to reach the top, without fainting and pretending it’s not worth it’. It is worth it. It’s worth everything! Climb, climb, climb!


You know which way is up. We’ve just told you. There is a spiritual sense, and there is the physical sense. Both merge together as one. For the creation is a massive parable, and we, its inhabitants, upon a central stage, the ones who fulfill this unparalleled parable. An entrance, an exit. In between, the action. The final act, death. And then the audience is still, breathless, till, parable & play accomplished, they give us a standing ovation.


And the Queen, Our Lord’s Priceless Gem, stands over all, Mary blessing us.


Unless, of course, you’re one of those actors who abandons his post.


They are the lowest of the low. They will never perform again.


For them the theatre is dark forever, no spotlight to shine.


And if it shines, they writhe in agony, trying to escape.


But there is no escape. So be CATHOLIC: climb.


The view alone is worth everything. I promise.






Don’t wish to be anticlimactic, but I’m throwing in this fairly brief addendum for the curious or skeptical reader. If you’re more than satisfied with what you’ve perused thus far, finding it uplifting & compelling, or at least pious & interesting, then fine. Please in no way feel like the author --- me --- expects you to go further. I’m sure, for the average person, what you’ve gotten through might have been a bit difficult, understanding-wise.


For the rest of you, though? Perhaps you’d like to sniff around a little more. For what?


Well, for instance, NASA. And the now legendary ‘moon hoax’ allegations. Recall?


If at all you’re tied to the global cloud, or contemporary culture, then you know.


Or, for that matter, other strange things in the past 50 years involving NASA.


And what is NASA’s specialty? Yes. Invading… I mean, exploring… space. True, this doesn’t directly bear on what we’ve been discussing --- the structure of God’s cosmos --- but it does indirectly link. So, first things first. How about those wild ‘moon hoaxes’?


I’m a space buff, and always have been since earliest childhood. I’ve actually personally met and spoke to one of the Apollo moon astronauts, he recounting memories & feelings about walking on the surface of the nearest celestial orb. (Amongst many remarks, two of his observations about being in space and on the moon really struck me: how much more clearly he & his fellow astronauts could concentrate in deep space, and how being on the moon made him feel as if he was in the midst of a ‘holy desolation’. He wasn’t a Roman Catholic, sadly, yet he did become very traditionally religious as a result of having been to the moon and experiencing what he went through…) I’m also a geek, knowing about physics, rocketry & etc. Meaning, I comprehend them, they don’t dazzle or overwhelm my mind, and I can evaluate them properly. Plus, I’ve the distinction, along with the billions of other human beings living now or recently, at living at just this time in humanity’s history, when these things are no longer dreams or science fiction.


So, something to say about all this? You bet. And clear up the mystery?


Maybe. We’ll see. I think I have some insights. Read on to find out.


How did the ‘moon hoax’ allegations start? Several persons can be fingered as responsible all the way back to the 1970s. It wasn’t until 1997, nonetheless, that an argument in the media arose that captured enough people’s attention. This happened simultaneous to the internet arising. It’s why it caught fire then. Precisely speaking, a publisher asked a journalist to examine a manuscript, claiming the moon landings faked, and evaluate it for them. This led him to investigate the matter for several months, later making a modest documentary upping the idea, and get enough notoriety to bring these allegations into the ‘mainstream’. Incidentally, this man died in 1998. Weird chance? Perhaps. But it’s one of many odd things about the whole affair. ‘Moon hoax’ charges generally go way astray of actual facts, nevertheless, one must be honest. If you study things meticulously, you realize that some skullduggery is going on. Why? Hang tight. We’ll get to answering that question in a bit. It’s part of the puzzle, though. Meanwhile, end of story? Case ‘proved’? Not by far, really. First, no one in large numbers until then had ever, ever, ever, period, thought to doubt the basic truth of American moon landings. The effort involved around 400,000 people, it made US citizens incredibly proud of their country, and the remainder of the world was pretty much blown away as well. And Soviet Russians? Think about it. We were ‘racing’ them to the moon, correct? Yep. We and they were Cold War enemies, too. If the ‘faked’ landings are so easy to spot nowadays by all kinds of untrained people sitting on their duffs looking at various videos on their laptop, tablet or smartphone, then how come highly trained, incredibly intelligent and enemy scientists in Russia couldn’t do the same all the way back in the late 1960s and early 1970s? Huh? Why, instead, did the Soviet Union congratulate us, never raise public doubts about our amazing exploits in the heavens, and refuse to ‘expose’ the moon landings for the ‘hoax’ that lots of Americans in the past 20 years think they were?


As I’m sometimes fond of saying --- and the saying goes --- it doesn’t quite add up.


Sure, you can get even more ‘conspiratorial’ and hypothesize that the Russians were completely ‘in’ with us on this ‘hoax’… notwithstanding, where’s the hard proof? One can make all the accusations one wants, but, without solid evidence, don’t expect the honest & intelligent person to swallow it whole. At best, you’ll get a polite listening.


Second point, however. Who are these people making the allegations? Many of them have absolutely no real expertise in physics or rocketry. Hence, why take them seriously? You can be polite. And, yes, occasionally, people without expertise can be right about something beyond their expertise. But automatically believe what they claim without consulting the experts, or having the expertise? That takes prejudice. As in, you’ve stepped into the beyond, having an axe to grind --- not actual facts & full logic. So, expecting the unbiased person to swallow it whole without doubts? Sorry, no go.


On the other hand, there have been some people with scientific training who’ve made allegations against NASA & the moon landings, though not agreeing on everything they allege. Should they be taken any more seriously? Well, if you’ve rationality & factuality, certainly, you can examine their arguments carefully & fairly. Unfortunately, none of them, as far as I can tell --- and for all their scientific training --- is a physicist when speaking of ‘celestial mechanics(how to navigate through the heavens), or highly trained in rocketry (how to make giant missiles that go way far, without them accidentally, and unintentionally, blowing up and killing astronauts).


Not that you automatically believe a real expert without recourse to logic & facts. Howsoever, when not an actual expert in the relevant thing at hand, shouldn’t one examine their arguments very cautiously, utilizing hard evidence & sound logic before casting in your lots with a skeptic? Plainly. What’s more, to be just, you must examine factual & rational rebuttals against a skeptic. Otherwise, you’re jumping to a biased conclusion. And the factual & rational rebuttals are there. It’s just that an untrained individual, with big huge prejudices, either doesn’t know where to look for all the intelligent rebuttals, or else, quite frankly, doesn’t care enough to look studiously.


That is to say, they’ve got gargantuan axes to grind, and way too much pride.


Third point, what makes anyone think it was ‘impossible’ to go to the moon?


Hard, yes. Extremely difficult. Yet ‘impossible’ for the richest, most powerful & exceedingly technological nation on earth? Wait a minute. Here’s where adequate training enters the equations. Do you understand physics, dear reader? And rocketry? Uh… no? Not really? Not to the fullest, or much at all? Then what is your basis for so cockily trashing the idea that the United States really did land astronauts on the moon? Right --- you really don’t have a sound basis. Just prejudice. I’m sorry to step on your toes; just want you to have a becoming dose of humility. If you don’t truly grasp physics & rocketry, then you really don’t have any grounds for airily dismissing the US landing on the moon as ‘impossible’. Newton’s equations of gravity had been proven over and over again for three centuries prior to the moon landings. Hence, for a scientist, there could be no ‘impossibility’ here. It just took power --- immense power. And careful technological control of all factors involved. It also took calculus, a newly minted mathematics helpfully invented by the aforesaid Mr. Newton and a Mr. Liebniz. Comprehension of calculus, based on the notion of ‘the limit’, enabled experts, employing Newton’s equations, to calculate to a tee how to land on the moon. Technology of the 20th century then sealed the deal. To wit, rocketry.


Oh, and, computers. Yes, they were in their infancy at the time.


Yet just good enough to do what we needed them to do.


I don’t mean to oversimplify --- okay, well, actually, I do. Because most readers couldn’t possibly handle all of the arcane details. We had to invent new materials to handle new & extreme environments, as well as new & extreme forces in launching & landing our brave astronauts, etc., etc. Like heat shields, spacesuits, velcro (yes, not a make-or-break thing, but it really was pioneered by the space program), self-igniting rocket fuels, gyroscopes able to operate flawlessly in space, life support systems, and on & on & on. Challenges were, indeed, enormous. Yet insurmountable? No, it just took will, intelligence, money and a threatening competitor to keep spurring us along. Oh, and an inspirational man, John F. Kennedy, who really did like the idea and knew it would galvanize the US. Remember the Cold War? Correct. The Soviets kept one-upping us; Sputnik, dear humanity’s first artificial satellite (leastwise, in modern times), Vostok, Voskhod: Americans truly were worried that the Soviet Union would surpass and beat us.


So yes. Yes, it was extremely difficult yet very possible to do what we did.


So why the skepticism? Why are so many so dubious about this lately?


Two reasons. Let us examine the first quickly, the second closely.


First, we Americans became very distrustful of our government in the wake of the Vietnam War & Watergate (the scandal that caused Mr. Nixon to become first ever United States president to resign from his office --- and in proven criminal disgrace). Furthermore, with Hollywood cinema wizardry, special effects & CGI, many Americans assume blithely, out of thinnest air, that it’d be ‘easy’ to fake moon landings in the studio and with the help of aforesaid special effects. Getting it? Combine distrust in our leaders, along with trust in film making or similar things, and voilà! How on earth --- or off earth --- could the moon landings be true? This is, at heart, how a skeptic unthinkingly thinks. Ironically, a very smart guy, who, while little known, is truly an expert in film making (his niche is documentaries), has posted a clever video on You Tube disproving such skeptical ‘thinking’ when it comes to hoaxing the moon landings with special effects. This gentleman uses a crude word in the video, so, in deference to a Catholic of tender conscience, I’ll not give exact references for finding it. Yet if determined to watch it, I’m pretty sure you could discover it on your own. We’ll simply sum up his clever argument. With dry wit and superb reasoning, not pretending to be an expert in physics or rocketry, he goes through the technical challenges of ‘faking’ film or videos of the moon landings. Yes, he admits, perhaps we could fake it today, in the last couple of decades… yet way back then, in the 1960s or early ’70s? Not so fast. The technology of film or TV, with fabulous special effects, etc., just wasn’t up to the challenge. In other words, it wasn’t possible, literally!, back then, to ‘hoax’ a moon landing. We didn’t have the adequate skills, tools & technology, at that time, to create film or video making it look like we actually went into space, landed on the moon, and then returned safely to the earth.


Literally! It’s a brilliant piece of reasoning. So what is his ultimate conclusion?


Yes, it surely is extremely difficult to actually land on the moon. And he doesn’t ever claim to have the expertise in physics & rocketry to argue the truth of the moon landings scientifically. He does, however, point out the obvious. If impossible to hoax the film or video at the time, then, no matter how difficult, it’d be easier to truly land an astronaut upon the moon, just as countless people have said is actually the case (read: scientists, astronauts, engineers, and anyone involved in the project to do so). It’s a very clever variation on the fictional Sherlock Holmes’ famous dictum --- and I paraphrase this saying roughly --- “When you have logically & factually ruled out all of the likely explanations, then, however unlikely you may have thought it to be, the ‘unlikely’ becomes the likely, i.e., most probable, explanation in the end.” Do you see?


It very much is a brilliant argument, coming at it in an unexpected way.


And from a person who is an expert when it comes to film or video.


But on to the second reason for kneejerk skepticism about the moon landings.


Because, in all honesty, NASA has been craftily dishonest concerning many things. Whatever could I mean? Well, a US federal legislator once put it perfectly & succinctly. Again I paraphrase roughly yet accurately: “All US agencies lie some of the time. NASA is the only US agency, though, that lies all of the time.” Pretty blistering, eh? Yet true. So ‘proof’ that NASA ‘faked’ the moon landings? Once more, not so fast. This is hyperbole the gentleman was indulging. He wasn’t saying everything NASA says is a lie, just that NASA routinely lies and does so way more often than other US agencies do. Upshot?


This is the other big reason lots of Americans recently believe the landings a hoax.


Because they do realize, in spite of lack of learning, perchance, that NASA lies.


And, strangely enough, there’s evidence NASA wants a moon hoax believed.


Say what? Yes --- NASA could have encouraged belief in a ‘moon hoax’.


Yet why on earth… or off earth… would they do so? To what end?


This is where this subject indirectly links to geocentricity and God’s structuring of creation, which we have described & supported in this small book, trying to disabuse people, particularly real Roman Catholics, of belief in the Modernist religious dogma of heliocentrism or acentricity. I know it will sound incredibly odd to most people, and I certainly am not fond of ‘conspiracy theorizing’ --- especially the baseless & nuttiest kinds --- nonetheless, conspiracies do exist, and evidence does back the following:


That NASA is not obliged to divulge all that it knows, discovers or records.


Read their founding charter, as available publicly & officially to this day. Yes, it’s hundreds of pages long and very tedious reading, but if you know where to look, the charter does indeed state, at least once, how NASA, in the interest of national security, can purposefully withhold information from the American public, or anyone in the world, should they or someone else in the US Government deem it to compromise United States’ security. And what on earth --- or, er, off earth --- could NASA know that would injure US security? There is a more ‘official’ and believable (to most people today) answer, along with an unofficial and more unbelievable (ditto previous parenthetical words) answer to this sensible question. Let us deal with the more ‘official’ one initially.


In the early 1960s, NASA commissioned the Brookings Institution to do a study.


And what is the ‘Brookings Institution’? Super smart thinkers in the US Capitol.


Viz., really highly educated intellectuals, who, back in 1916, formed an official group for, ostensibly, the purpose of research… particularly regarding the ‘social sciences’… in order to ‘support’ American democracy & well-being, as well as foster an ‘international system’ that is increasingly better & better than before. So, when they completed their study for NASA way back then, amongst other things in a long report, what said they?


That were NASA to discover evidence of ‘extraterrestrial life’, keep it quiet. Why?


Lest the common people, with their common religious beliefs, go utterly bonkers.


Well, alright, they said it more academically, with lots of scholarly aplomb. Yet it is, essentially, what they stated. You see, back near the beginning of World War II, a very famous director named Orson Welles did a radio play in 1938 based on H. G. Well’s The War of the Worlds, an early science fiction novel set up on the idea of deadly ‘Martians’ invading earth. The play written to sound like a real news report, in spite of disclaimers, it caused plenty of listeners to ‘panic’ and go just a little bonkers. Other scholars lately now say that the ‘panic’ was overstated; in reality, per them, the radio play caused no huge public pandemonium. Whichever, the Brookings Report took this kind of fear seriously, urging NASA to be cautious were it to uncover evidence of ETs. Even supposing it is ancient evidence, or merely microbial, keep the findings quiet!


Again, why? Lest the everyday citizen get mightily disturbed, finding it to horribly contradict their religious convictions, or terribly afraid, fearing some sort of ‘invasion’. Therefore, recommended these elite intellectuals, it’s far wiser to not admit it suddenly.


Understand now? If taken at face value, this does seem to explain some NASA coyness.


As in, for instance, there already being tons of evidence that Mars hosts microbial, fungal, or even plant-like, biological life. Several intelligent & educated people have remarked on this (e.g., the late Arthur C. Clarke, a really smart guy who wrote the film for legendary director Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, released in 1968 and still considered by many, to this day, as the best science fiction film ever made). Is it believable for a real & wise Roman Catholic? Actually, yes. The One True Religion nowhere rules out, yet, some possibility of biological life upon nearby celestial orbs. Consequently, as surprising as it may be for real Catholics (or mayhap not, modern education & media having slowly ‘conditioned’ people today to accept this notion), there’s no reason to ‘panic’ or go ‘bonkers’ if such things prove indubitably true.


No, the only place real & wise Catholics draw the line is at ‘sentient’ ET life.


I.e., any extraterrestrial biological life that equals, or excels, human beings.


This is because no real Catholic is Darwinist, and God made us special.


Ergo, no reason God creates equal or excelling ET corporeal beings.


But… is this really the primary motivation for what we may term a kind of NASA ‘coyness’? Here’s where it gets interesting. Here, too, is where it intersects with the structure of the cosmos, geocentristically speaking. The Catholic Church has opposed something called ‘Freemasonry’ for a few centuries now. Per our popes, Freemasonry intrinsically defies Catholicity, and, prior to the Vatican II Pseudo-Council and what Catholics entitle the ‘Great Apostasy’ all over the world today, Catholics suffered automatic excommunication , per canon law, were they to join this organization.


The interesting part, though? And how does it relate to a federal agency, NASA?


Anyone who studies Freemasonry knows that it consists of, at a bare minimum, 33 ‘degrees’. That is, most Freemasons belong to the first three & lowest degrees, they possibly not even knowing of the existence of higher degrees. And no Freemason is required to publicly acknowledge that he’s a Freemason, or that he belongs to higher degrees (please pardon me if a reader thinks I’m being ‘sexist’, but facts are facts… Freemasons have not yet allowed women into their official ranks). However, these Freemasonic men are also not forbidden to publicly acknowledge membership in Freemasonry, or a high degree attained --- leastwise, not that outsiders have ever ascertained. What we do know, notwithstanding, via publicly released data, from Freemasonic organizations or sources, is that very many --- if not most --- leaders of NASA, from it’s origin in 1958, together with many --- if not most --- of those brave astronauts from it’s origin, have been HIGH RANKING FREEMASONS… period.


Meaning? As we explain in Parts 5 & 6 of the long book, Helplessly Ignorant , our country, the United States of America, was founded & shaped by the Freemasons. Not that we have the audacity to claim, without actually knowing, that most or all ‘Founding Fathers’ were Freemasons, but that an amazing amount of them were. It’s not that hard, looking carefully, to find the testimony & evidence in reputable public sources. George Washington, our very first president, was a high ranking Freemason. So was Benjamin Franklin, famous for both helping to start the United States and for inventions & wit. Supreme Court of the U.S.A.? Try John Jacobs, also a high ranking Freemason, and initial chief justice of this highest of our nation’s courts. We’re not being ‘alarmist’. Biggest point? Freemasons clearly helped start & shape our country in the past 2½ centuries. They also clearly helped to originate & shape NASA since the 1950s.


Intelligent question, then. What are the Freemasons? What is their purpose?


As a real Roman Catholic, I take our popes’ testimony with all gravity.


If both our nation, and NASA, were shaped & guided by Masons…


Well, then, what may we reasonably suspect? Um hm. Right.


That they’ve an ulterior motive in shaping both nation & NASA. So what is this ultimately anti-Catholic & ulterior motive? It’s not intended to help or uphold the Singularly True Church of the Triune Catholic God! So what is it for? This is where geocentricity comes into the picture. If you study Freemasonry meticulously, all their literature, as publicly available, and starkly founded --- and fixated upon --- the ancient Babylonians & Egyptians, then you realize, unavoidably, that their goal is, just as popes have said, against Roman Catholicism. Which means? That they want to achieve what the Babylonians & Egyptians came close to achieving, soon after the Great Flood, and that, inverting what the ancient Israelites had, with their Old Testament Temple, in old Jerusalem, a Luciferianism that innately opposes what real Roman Catholicism attests. So, ultimate goal? Precisely what the devil since the beginning has sought to achieve. Which is? Ultimate rebellion against the Triune Catholic God, Uncreated Creator of Everything That Exists, and supposedly ultimate triumph erecting a false ‘church’.


Which means, putting everything together, opposition to the idea of geocentrism.


Say again? If the Creator has put earth in universal center for very good reason:


Alright, then, we must OPPOSE an idea of geo-centrality with utmost venom.


Why? Because it decimates the notion that everything ‘evolved by chance’.


Got it? Good. Then let us proceed. Freemasons don’t want earth as central.


Why? Because it’s so ‘unbelievable’ or ‘unsupported’ by the hard data…?


Not at all. Because it subverts their ulterior motives, opposing Catholicity.


In ancient times, this was not such a big deal. Traditional pagans upheld notions of paganism despite geocentrism. Later pagans? During modern times? Not so much… leading to the gist? That satan, so as to ‘defeat’ Catholicism, God’s One True Religion, must, if to deceive the entire world, appear as if to ‘defeat’ geocentrism in order to look like he ‘defeats’ the central idea of a ‘central earth’. Which, if left ‘undefeated’, leads to intelligent & honest humans concluding the obvious --- geocentrism is closer to true:


That geocentrism, in any form, explains things better than Modernist acentricity.


Now high ranking Freemasons are smart enough to know this. And I don’t know how high the rank must be before such a man gets the full picture, knowing what it is which his Freemasonic organization opposes, and what they’re trying to achieve. I do know this, though. That the cosmos is geocentricistically formed --- and even if I or another who ups geocentricity hasn’t quite got it all figured out accurately --- and that, if a Freemason high up in the ranks, then it’s NOT IN YOUR INTEREST to admit this fact yet. But NASA is in the business of ‘exploring’ space, right? Right. So if lots of high ranking Masons have dominated their agency, then is it in their interest, as opponents of Catholicity, to release any information that would tend to support geocentricity and torpedo acentricity? Of course not. That would be anathema, and forbidden. Ergo, what would NASA with a founding charter… and the Brookings Report… serve to do for them? Correct. It would provide perfect intellectual & legal cover for suppressing any facts that tend to support the ‘shocking’ idea of geocentricity or the Saving Truth of Roman Catholicism.


Starting to put it together? Do you suspect what NASA’s deepest purpose is?


Hint: it’s NOT simply to ‘explore’ space or support aeronautics research.


Mind you, it’s never either / or. That’s too simplistic. And I’m pretty sure that most employees of NASA, or their ally, JPL, or other branches of their agency, etc., are the sincerest of people, really believing in the goal of ‘exploration’ and scientific research. That is ultimately not to the point. If high ranking Freemasons are opposed to the Saving Truth of Catholicism --- and they are, as our popes have assured us --- then their primary goal for NASA cannot --- repeat, cannot! --- be merely exploration or research. Or, one should say, it is exploration & research as subordinated to the greater goal of learning how to build a new & modern ‘Tower of Babel’ in order to invade & conquer God’s heavens above. Again, study Parts 5 & 6 of the lengthy book, Helplessly Ignorant . Studying this resource will provide you the tools for comprehending Lucifer & compatriots’ goals. Specifically, the Apocalypse and its Oceanic Beast.


See, I told you it would sound strange. And yet it’s in Sacred Scripture. As well as supported by what the One True Religion teaches, what Church doctors or theologians have upheld, what saints have warned, what Church-approved Apparitions of Our Lady have said & cautioned about, etc., etc. This is the Great Apostasy. Strange things are afoot, as judged by what used to be everyday standards. And evil really is real.


Consequently, as humanity has ventured further & further, or more steadily, into the heavens above, what do you think they are finding? That’s right. It’s not all going to be able to be shoehorned into the latest Modernist mythology of biological or cosmological Darwinism. The highest ranking of Freemasons will know & suspect a lot of this, rooted as they are in the ancient occultic lore of the Babylonians & Egyptians. They will also, I wager, at least occasionally discover things that they’re not fully prepared for. In either case, they will sometimes need to suppress what they’re seeing. Because humanity in totality is not quite ready for it… as they would view it. For instance, if they found ‘artifacts’ upon the moon telling of a lunar history very much contradicting what’s standard cosmological Darwinist belief & teaching --- indeed, ‘artifacts’ upholding Catholicism and a very different story about early humanity and ancient history --- whatever would they ‘have to do’ so as to ‘shield’ modern humanity from learning, shockingly, about these things, prior to us being ‘ready’ for such knowledge?


Correct. They’d have to lie about it, spin it cleverly, or suppress it fully.


And is there evidence that they’ve been doing so, at least occasionally?


There is indeed. It’s just a guess, but why do you think it’s taken so long for we Americans to return to the moon? Is it just the ups & downs of politics? No, because Apollo paved the way and, even if done in a slower or less expensive way, we certainly could have systematically & permanently established a human presence on earth’s moon long ago, by 1990 at the very latest. I grew up in the generation as a space buff (and prior to becoming Catholic, by the way) --- along with Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’ ‘Blue Origin’ or Elon Musk’s ‘Space X’ and so on --- that, as a geek, was fed the line that we’d build a moon base by the end of the 1970s, put human beings on Mars by 1984, and construct gigantic ‘space colonies’ in cislunar space by the turn of the 21st century. These things never happened. Is it because it was ‘beyond’ our ability or wealth to accomplish…? Nonsense. Any intelligent person interested in these things knows that’s rubbish. We already had the basic technology. The United States is also the richest and truly most powerful nation on earth since the end of World War II. If we wished, of all nations, America could have done it. This is why Mr. Bezos is funding his own private little ‘space program’ to the tune of billions of dollars every year (Blue Origin, which has helped upend rocketry with his reusable ‘New Shepard’ vehicle that lands safely on earth’s surface after launching) and Mr. Musk is launching everything he can with equally reusable ‘Falcon 9’ rockets (he having recently & spectacularly introduced ‘Falcon Heavy’ rockets, propelling a cherry red Tesla roadster beyond the orbit of Mars… and tantalizing space nerds with the jawdropping ‘Starship’ vehicle that’s capable, if successful, of sending humans anywhere in the solar vicinity). It’s easy: because both they & I, along with lots of geeks, thought we’d be so farther along; because they, and others, realize they must do it themselves if NASA won’t.


So, question --- why won’t, and why hasn’t, clever NASA done it already?


They’ve done a lot in the past 50 years, true. Yet far less than they could have.


No one really straight out asks NASA a query like this, and, really, nobody in NASA necessarily addresses it straight out. Cobbling data together, a shrewd person can think the answer is, basically, “NASA needs direct leadership & funding from the government of the USA in order to pursue such goals.” Yet this is NOT, strictly speaking, totally true. Should the leaders in NASA, at any given time, have actually wanted to do at least some of these exploits in the heavens, then, in a systematic, continuous and low key way, they certainly could have pursued these goals without exact goals or more funding from the federal presidency or our legislature. That is to say, NASA leaders do have significant discrepancy concerning how they spend the funds the federal government allots them; their hands are not wholly tied by what the US President & Congress tell them to do. Too, NASA is notorious since the 1970s for wasting tons of money on various ideas which both go over-budget and take way longer than originally stated. This is in stark contrast to the ‘hey day’ of NASA in the 1950s & 1960s, when, barely 8 years after Pr. John F. Kennedy announced the aim to land the United States’ astronauts on the moon, they moved quickly & daringly. Thus, even without constant directives from the federal government, or greatly increased funds from the same, they could have --- as stated just above --- systematically & continuously aimed for these goals. So why didn’t they…? Remember… NASA’s name & reason to exist, apart from aeronautics, is to explore farther & farther into space, with humans following ‘reconnoitering’ robot probes.


The more ‘official’ and believable answer is, “Because NASA has been discovering evidence of extraterrestrial biological life out there and, following the Brookings Report and going by their founding charter’s authorization, they are suppressing this information to keep common people from ‘panicking’ or going ‘bonkers’ over the prospect, since it would be so ‘upsetting’ to them, socially & religiously.” That’s the pat answer.


Not very well known, but documented and therefore the most believable.


The unofficial and less believable answer is, “Because NASA is not simply a federal agency designed to ‘explore’ and ‘research’, especially in space. It is a Modernist effort to religiously invade & conquer the heavens, building a new, modern Tower of Babel’, and their ultimate goal, along with the Freemasons and New World Order powers-that-be, is to reform (literally, to ‘change the form of’) modern humanity into the immortal ‘gods’ that they want to be, and that they want us to be, too. Part of being godlike is having the ability to ascend into the heavens and live there, doing amazing godlike stuff. Oh, and, defying the Triune God of the Catholic Church, vaunting Luciferian dreams, which includes ‘resurrecting’, as it were, the ancient pagan star goddess of old, variously entitled Inanna (Sumerian), Ishtar (Babylonian), Isis (Egyptian), and so forth.”


Hardly known at all, not so very documented, hence not so easily believable.


Unless, of course, you’re truly Roman Catholic and intensely curious.


Then you realize, “Yes. This makes the most sense of things.”


That is to say, until the New World Order powers-that-be manage to reshape all of humanity into something evil enough to be able to know the full truth about ‘space’ (read: the heavens) and the true structure of our cosmos without wanting to become Roman Catholic as a result, then they must dissemble about things occasionally, and procrastinate in their efforts to get human beings further into deep space. Because if they’d move ‘too quickly’, then they’d risk upsetting too many people who aren’t prepared for it (from their point of view…) and they may not be quite prepared, completely, to do everything they wish out there until a certain point in time. Comprehending? This is why NASA may’ve wanted the ‘moon hoax’ theory.


Whichever, smart & high ranking Freemasons at NASA know these things.


As does anyone else fully initiated into the New World Order hierarchy.


They know very well the cosmos is geocentricitist, not acentricitist.


But the lie of acentricity has served them well up until this point.


They’re not quite ready for us to find out the cosmic truth.


The truth that Our Creator put earth at the center of everything; that He designed humanity to be assumed into Highest Heaven with Him forever via Catholicism; that their goal is to oppose the Creator & His Singularly True Religion of Catholicism; and that their ‘god’ is their own selves, as slavishly imitating their master, Lucifer, simultaneously trying to usher in a ‘New Age’ and a ‘New Aeon of the Sun’.


Strange? Yes --- if you don’t have the big picture and aren’t really Catholic.


Impossible? Not if you’re truly Catholic, geocentricitist, and think carefully.


As William Shakespeare had his title character say in the famous play, Hamlet, to longtime friend & fellow student, Horatio, in Act 1, Scene 5, Lines 186-7 (the precise line numbers depend on little discrepancies of how people count them, and we follow Shakespeare’s ‘First Folio’ from 1623, which differs slightly from later editions):


“There are more things IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, Horatio, than are DREAMT OF IN OUR PHILOSOPHY.” (Reference as already given, all emphases added.)


Well said. And I would advise you to dream the truth and a little bigger.


Which Big Truth is Roman Catholicism Whole, Entire & Undefiled.


Oh, and Queen Mary really is the Queen of Highest Heaven!


In Her, like God on the Seventh Day of Creation, we find rest.


Not that the True God ‘needs’ to rest. But He is well-pleased.


We, however, do need rest. And Mary is the Seventh


In Whom we shall rest, pleasing Our Maker forever.


God & Humanity, 7 & 6, reconciled, at peace…


She alone is God’s Immaculate. She 6 to 7.


Which is His True Roman Catholicism.


In which alone is His True Salvation.


Jacob’s Ladder, here, right now.


Amen and amen, forever.




Like the Ufology booklet just a little while ago, I have bided my time and thought & prayed before posting an Afterword to the Geocentricity booklet. Yet why a modest-sized addition now, well over three months since fully uploaded in Mary’s month of May?


As with the former --- and even more so with the latter --- it involves parable.


And how popular is that? Who likes, let alone understands, Divine Allegory?


I have lived all my life… not raised Catholic to begin with and not converted till I was 33 (wholly converted at the equally curious age of 36 with the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, the former a decimal number of thirds, the latter a triangular numerality which transcends mere decimality)… and always considered the invisible world, that we don’t normally see, to be as vital --- and far more so! --- than the visible we’re all gaga for.


In other words, the visible & material world fascinates me, and I’m certainly not saintly enough to be utterly unattached to it; but, honestly, the world of physicality only interests me inasmuch as it tells me more & more about the invisible & spiritual world. This is the world in which the angels & demons are primary inhabitants, and in which an Uncreated Creator manifests His Presence in the Highest Heavens. So, where is my mind? Far too often, I’m afraid, mired in the immoral muck of earth. Nonetheless, simultaneously, constantly fixated upon the shining celestial peaks of the stellar empyrean. Strange?


I suppose. All I know is that I’ve never felt like I fit in anywhere. I’m a foreigner.


Even amongst my fellow Catholics, although divine charity overcomes here.


But, then, as a real Catholic, I must learn to love my enemy. Friends?


There is no true friend on earth for most of us. Especially now.


The only true friend is God, Mary and the heavenly citizens. The catch is, they’re stupendously marvelous friends and know that real friendship is founded upon truth. Which, truth be told, means human beings as you & I must suffer. For whom God loves, He chastises. (Hebrews 12:6a) Like any good father, like any good mother, Our Heavenly Father & Heavenly Mother discipline their children, real Roman Catholics, and, the more they love you, the more they punish & scourge you, purifying and gaining you reward. Celestial reward we could never merit otherwise, so cowardly & wicked are we.


The point? Knowing where cosmic center is, and which way is up, we climb.


That is, if truly Roman Catholic and striving to be a good Catholic at death.


And is it easy to clamber upwards? As an amateur mountaineer, I can tell you: “It becomes easier the harder you train. Howsoever, mountains can be steep. And, the higher one goes, the more difficult it gets. Oxygen grows thin, the air waxes cold, the weather is more treacherous & deadly for the poor mortal.” Why, then, climb? Because that’s the place to find God, Our Maker, both literally & figuratively. Yet it takes a far different human being from you or me to make it. It takes a Catholic saint. Someone who can suffer and not complain. Someone who always trusts Heaven no matter what. The Catholic person whose heart is so pure, so holy, he or she practically levitates.


Only then may we ascend --- or, rather, assume --- safely into perilous heights.


We have to get lighter, in both senses of the word in English. Comprenez vous?


Put in French: “You comprehend?” France Christendom’s heart ’ere the Apostasy.


As a result, we’ve less weight to struggle against. We’ve less need of air to breathe, Catholic souls inhaling sweet graces instead. And we stay warm, regardless, the chaste fire in our divinely inflamed hearts exuding heat beyond imagining… and wrapped in Our Holy Mother’s Mantle, to boot. We shall take wings like eagles; we shall like a Catholic Icarus loft sunward without plummeting; we shall like Phaëthon mount heavenward, our Catholicism Whole, Entire & Undefiled teaching us how we successfully steer there, avoiding the hellish conflagration of a dense earth.


Too poetical? Do you not know poetry & music are the tongues of angels?


We must learn to speak in the parables & pitches of the celestial spheres.


On earth it is a blue collar workman’s drudgery of machines & metal.


Or a warrior’s cry in the throes of bloody yet exhilarating battle.


Yet a just war, and no fear, is a Catholic angel on earth. Or, put another way, the authentic Catholic warrior is a poet & minstrel at heart, his or her heart ready to die in a trice for his or her Lord & Lady, in his or her instant obedience walking upon water like another St. Maurus, whether physically & actually, or spiritually & metaphorically only. For any real Catholic is also a real warrior --- if truly Catholic & striving to do right. Solely a striver, solely he or she who perseveres as truly Roman Catholic, surmounts.


Bringing us back to mountaineering. Or, should we say, Celestial Mountaineering.


And to surmount this Mountain, we must be Roman Catholic Whole & Undefiled.


It is the Mountain of God, the One Which predominates throughout the cosmos.


Are you truly Roman Catholic? And ready to climb? In order to save your soul?


Well done! Right. We’ve seen a sketch of the empyrean map, the one describing God’s Creation’s Structure. We’ve seen an outline of many of the Celestial Spheres, explaining their location, significance & implications. We’ve mentioned several a time that this is St. Jacob’s Ladder, which, in turn, is none other than God’s Mother, the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary, the Immaculate One and Our Creator’s Golden Ratio, Phi (ϕ) Personified. We’ve as well portrayed this Heavenly Ladder as a ‘spiraling staircase’, like human DNA --- a coiling double helix --- made cosmic. As a lovely song’s lyrics once said, “…up the spiral staircase, to the higher ground…” The Ground of All Being, in this case. Our Uncreated Maker, Who exists Self-Substantially & Self-Eternally, all else existing, existing only because He freely & uncompelled chooses to make anything exist.


This is the metaphysical ground of all existence, ontologic & cosmic substrate.


Without it, there’d be no way to climb and nothing to climb as well. Literally.


Yet why spiraling? What is the meaning, the signification? The parable here?


In spiraling, two things transpire: circular motion & relative linear motion. It’s like a point upon a circle going ’round & ’round, but either rising or falling as it does so. It’s much more complex oftentimes… nevertheless, this is the rudimentary gist. And in the situation of a spiral staircase, or the double helix of DNA, we’ve the additional twist (pun intended) of two points on the hypothetical circle going ’round & ’round, twining as they do, making for a ladder… or stair… that winds in a cosmic dance, a spiritual symphony of eurhythmic beauty & grace. (And, yes, eurhythmic is a real word, not just the source for a UK musical duo’s unique name, albeit without first ‘h’ and spelled ‘Eurythmics’. And again, as ever, beware modern artistic endeavors since they’re not always safe.) Starting to see with eyes that perceive a little further, a little deeper, a little subtler?


As said, well done! Right, then. Now, what has this booklet, Geocentricity, done? Explicated the structure of God’s Cosmos, as best as can be done as a real Catholic, taking Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition seriously, including widespread ancient beliefs & conceptions, as tweaked with the latest knowledge we’ve been able to derive with our contemporary instruments & technology --- minus silly & unfounded Modernist conceits, assumptions, prejudices & non-Catholic or anti-Catholic philosophic myth. So, upshot? Both ancient understandings and contemporary observations point toward what pretty much everyone once knew & accepted --- that the earth is at cosmic center and immobile, neither rotating nor revolving. And the cosmos itself, the rest of creation? Geocentrists some 1000 or 2000 or perhaps 3000 years ago knew & accepted that creation itself rotates around our central earth. Ah, yet contemporary knowledge, observations & clues have been able to adjust this comprehension slightly but imperatively. For it would seem the entire cosmos revolves around earth’s sun, scintillating & brilliant solar orb in turn, with the entire cosmos, circling earth.


Meaning, dual celestial rotations, entwined. Ergo, whither St. Jacob’s Ladder?


It is a complex, vast, harmonious & eurhythmic dance… notwithstanding, God’s creational symphony of motions is a spiral ascension & assumption of the Celestial Spheres of unparalleled pulchritude, beguiling & sublime. Mary by the Holy Ghost begot Jesus’ Flesh, clothing Him in Sacred Humanity. She the Tree of Life, He Her Fruit, They are the twin rails of the spiraling celestial staircase. From the Hill of the Skull in earth’s middle, this coiling ladder ascends & assumes, He, God from Eternity, leading the way, She, Immaculate from Conception, following along, paving the way for any good Catholic to dance with them in the stars, like a Heavenly Waltz, twirling…


And twirling… and twirling… and twirling… neverending, forever.


This is why God made our cosmos to center on earth & rotation, night & day, day & night, endlessly through the millennia. A Circle represents Eternality, just as a Triangle betokens His Trinity, and the Square evokes Holy Perfection. Eternally the immortal soul of a human being either spirals downward for a horrendous eternity in hell, or else spirals upward for a Wondrous Eternity in Heaven. And if the Pool of Fire, where hell is cast for all time when Our Creator makes a New Heaven & New Earth, is indeed in the ‘waters above’, a perpetual primordial chaos, then, perchance, circling endlessly in Outer Darkness, the mournful & profane Dance of Loss & Pain, like a freezing fire.


But if the latter --- a Celestial Height of Heights Eternal --- then, in the New Heaven & New Earth, in the ‘waters below’, a perpetually pristine & crystalline gemstone, circling with God Himself, His Omniscient & Charitable Gaze always upon us, Eternal Embrace, the joyous & sacred Dance of Abundance & Harmony, like a holy hearth & fire, always journeying whilst ever in place, Home Forever in Our Maker’s Omnipresence.


Envision then: the Phi Spiraling Ladder of Our Lord & Lady twines unto the Lunar Sphere where rests Her Holy Feet. Spiraling yet more intricately unto the Venusian Sphere --- the double revolution of Venus around Sun, and both around earth --- this most perfectly spherical & circular of all relatively nearby celestial orbs, or ‘planets’ (simply Greek-derived for ‘wandering star’), it as a heavenly body not only has a perfectly phi ratio of motion in relation to earth (called the ‘Rose of Venus’, graphable as a lovely mandala), but an utterly unique atmosphere that forms double vortices at both poles, south & north, they sometimes blending into an S shape, or something other even more complex. Signifying? As remarked elsewhere, Venus can stand for either Christ or Mary, this fascinating phenomenon at Venus’ poles further driving home the Hypostatic Union, God’s Eternally Begotten Son clothing Himself with the Immaculate Flesh of His Most Pure Mother, the Star of the Sea. Coiling upward further unto the Mercurian Sphere, astronomers have found this seemingly rocky celestial orb to resonate exquisitely, spinning on its axis and revolving around the Sun, in a 3:2 ratio. Meaning, every two orbits it completes around the Sun, it spins three times on its own axis. The Third Heaven made by the Triune God, the Second Person of the Trinity twinning His Divinity with His Mother’s Humanity, three to two. What’s more, Mercury’s ‘eccentricity’ of orbit is thirds also, its perihelion but of its aphelion. If you understand Our Maker at all, then it’s not by ‘chance’. It is symbolism, ‘esoteric’ only because most people don’t know or care. Otherwise, everyone would be aware and truly want to know. Comprenez vous?


D’accord. Il est mais surnaturellement naturel de voir cela avec les yeux ouverts.


Twirling on unto the Solar Sphere, the spiral staircase would appear to get a bit simpler, more like the first leap into the heavens with approach to the Lunar Sphere, then again is more complex as one twines unto the Martian, Asteroidal, Jovian, Saturnian Spheres, and etc. Till, if indeed, the most official Portal of Heaven is in the Pleiades, one spirals with a multiplicity of curving motions overlaid onto one another… like the elaborate layers of a symphony’s sectional & individual musicians joined in harmonious unity, generating harmonics galore… the assembled denizens of Heaven, like an empyrean choir, stars together in staggering array, of vast scale, singing & chanting an everlasting canticle.


The Canticle of Canticles. Our Lady’s Stellar Crowned Head wreathed in Glory.


Divinity & Humanity finally at peace, finally immaculate in love, radiant.


To gaze into the Eyes of Eternity, Image of God reflected perfectly.


Heaven kisses Earth while Angels parade, carol & vow fealty.


+ + +


Pilate’s query met:



if you’ve come to this webpage directly from a search

engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage

 --- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---

please type the website’s address (as given above right before this

note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the

enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.


Please go here about use of the writings

on this website.


© 2019 by Paul Doughton.

All rights reserved.