As on Earth, so in Heaven..

Chapter Seven 


In Figure 5, the  U. S. Naval Research Bureau's V-2  Rocket-camera photograph of a luminous, deceptively globular and isolated-appearing  area  of  the  Earth's  outer  sky  from  an  altitude of one hundred miles over White Sands, a white cloud-like formation appears in the luminous sky area. It will be recalled that the formation, resulting from  light variation within the luminous sky area hotographed, was misinterpreted as a cloud in the stratosphere. (See).
-65 Miles in height, over the New Mexico-
This was one of the Photos: taken from the V-2 Rocket.
(Courtesy of the Laboratory of Physics, University of Johns Hopkins)
[Unfortunately, we received the image in low quality; and the Book, as you know, is out of print. So, if any of you, had the opportunity, to send us, one with Better Resolution ... Be welcome! -NdT]
Consider what the same white formation would be conjectured to be at a distance  of twenty thousand or one hundred thousand miles. There can be no question about the astronomical label: it, like many corresponding celestial sky-gas formations, would have to be known as a "nebula" adrift in the enveloping stratosphere sea of darkness. That description would apply despite the fact that the white portion is In reality an intricate part of the luminous sky area. 

Black  patches  detected  in  the  so-called  "Milky  Way" section  of  the  celestial  sky  are  Intriguing  partners  of  the white  patches. They  would  also  be  detected  in the dense center of our terrestrial-sky where sky-light  intensity  presented to telescopic observation a "richness of star field". That terrestrial sky center would depend on the observation position held in the stratosphere or on a celestial land area. 

Were  we  to  change  our  present  terrestrial  location  to  that celestial location now considered the "Milky Way", it would be found that the terrestrial sky over the land positlon we left holds the greatest concentration  of  sky-light points,  and  that  terrestrial  sky section would merit the designation "Milky Way." 

In comparison with other terrestrial areas, it would seem to hold more light points. But because there seemed to be more, they would individually appear to be much less luminous than other sky-light points detected singly. Or, if the sky over the particular terrestrial point of departure were to lack the apparent profusion of light qualifying it for celestial "Milky Way" comparison, otner terrestrial sky areas would possess requisite seeming profusion of light points. Hence across the luminous stretch of our entire terrestrial sky there would be found from distant observation at least one sky-light area corresponding to the celestial "Milky Way".

As our ang}e of observation away from the overhead terrestrial  "Milky Way"  was  accentuated,  it  would  be  found that there was a eeemine diminishing of sky-light concentration  or,  as  astronomically  defined,  a  modification  of  the "richness  of  the  star  field". Though  the  astronomically  defined "richness  of  the  star  field" would be  constant  in  sky-light  continuity,  though  not  necessarily  in  brilliancy throughout the entire terrestrial sky, there would appear to be a diminution of sky-light concentration away from the "Milky Way" section. 

To illustrate, we will assume that Des Moines,. Iowa, 

and a certain adjacent sky area is the terrestrial "Milky Way" as observation is  had  from  a  celestial  land  position over Des Moines, The Des Moines  sky area and a  considerable sky area extending away from Des Moines would prosent to telescopic observation the terrestrial sky area of seemingly most abundant  light accumulation. That accumulation would  mean more points of light, but not brighter points.

Every  observation  beyond  that  established  and  more pronounced  "Milky  Way"  sky-light  accumulation  would necessitate  telescopic  observation  and  photography at an increasing angle to facilitate search for "stars" on the distant horizons of the terrestrial "Heavens above." The detection of remote  terrestrial  "stars,"  or  sky-light  points,  would  find them more sharply defined as  isolated entities  than  the sky-light  accumulation  comprising  the  so-called  terrestrial "Milky  Way". The  brilliancy permitting of detection, of whatever intensity, or astronomical "magnitude", would accentuate the apparent isolation common to the sky light of the entire Universe. 

But  that apparent  isolation would not be as pronounced in the "Milky Way." The greater the volume of massed light, despite  the  lesser  brilliancy  of  every  point  thereof,  the  less pronounced  is  the  apparent  isolation  of  each  point  of  the entire  area.  However,  the massed  light-point  whole  constituting  the  "Milky Way" must  appear  to  be more  detached from other detected sky-light points of the entire sky. That is why  the  so-called  "Milky Way"  seems  to  be  unique,  yet  it represents  sky  light  the  same  as  any  other  detected  lonely "star"   

Though  we  would  know  from  the  celestial  observation point  that  there existed a  continuity of  land and  sky at  the designated terrestrial "Milky Way," considerable of the sky-fight area would not be detected as observation at an angle was  made  away  from  the  Des Moines  sky  s  center  of  the terrestrial  "Milky  Way."  Any  off-center  observation  imposes limitations. Though every terrestrial sky area is In fact  to  some degree  luminous, as every area of  the celestial sky  is, many  areas would  have  to  be  assumed  nonexistent from celestial observation because the sky light of such areas would not be detected for various reasons previously described. 

The astronomical procedure of searching for "stars" on the distant horizons beyond  the "Milky Way  concentration of  celestial  sky  light  may  be  considered  co-related  to  the more realistic procedure of a laboratory technician's search. That realistic search would constitute examination of a mass specimen on  the  illuminated  surface of a  clinical glass  slide The multiple minute particles of the specimen mass would be the  technician's  field,  as  the  entire  celestial  sky  is  the astronomer's field. The electric-light illumination of the glass slide  would  represent  the  astronomer's  sky  light.  The technician's  microscope  would  represent  the  astronomer's telescope. 

In direct and near-direct focus of the microscope lens the greatest accumulation of  specimen would be apparent even though  the  field was of  the same density throughout. If the field  were  enlarged  by  lens  focus,  there  would  have  to appear to be a diminishing of the central concentration of specimen. Then  the  original  margins of the central  concentration  would  have to appear to become thinner, to a point of  specimen  obliteration. The  development of that condition would not mean that there was actually less specimen substance at  the extremities of  the glass-slide  field, but it would  limit observation of  the  field equal  in density. The area of direct or near-direct  lens  focus would  seem  to hold the most specimen substance. 

It becomes evident that the laboratory technician, "work-ing in these walls of time", holds a considerable advantage over the astronomer  working  in  the  limitless  corridors  of  infinity. The technician  working  in  a  limited  but  realistic  world  can constantly  move  and  adjust  the  glass  slide,  or  "star  field" equivalent, to serve his purpose. And he can keep constant, or he can increase or diminish, the illumination of his field Further,  In having  complete  control of  the field and  its  light, he can at will adjust the microscope lens for constant dead-center observation of the specimen.

There  seems  to be  lacking any  record  of  an  astronomer who was  capable  of making  adjustments  to his "star field" specimen which would keep it in direct focus, immobile, and under  the  constant  and  proper  illumination  required  for observation and determination. Sky  light of  the  celestial, as well as the terrestrial, is not subject to the penetrative enterprise  of  telescope  lenses  or  to  the  whim  and  deduction of astronomers. On  the  contrary,  sky  .light  everywhere  influences  lens  ability  to  detect  as  well  as  the  astronomer's deduction. It is a fascinating game of tag, where the astronomers and their lenses continue to be "it".

The humble but much more practical  laboratory  technician  holds  an  additional  advantage,  in  that  he  or  she  deals with known entities in a world of reality. If the least doubt is harbored  concerning  the  identity  of  certain  matter  or  entities within  the  specimen  of  the  slide  field,  any  number  of practical  tests  made  directly  upon  the  doubtful  substance will  determine  its  exact  properties.  That  little  feature  of direct  contact  with  and  immediate  test  of  the  questionable entity  differs  considerably  from  the  extremely  abstract mathematical  tests  to which  the astronomer  is restricted in an effort to determine conditions and entities of his remote abstract "star fields". It will be shown that  astronomy refutes astronomical conclusions in the making as a result of the manner of observation leading to the conclusions. 

Where  an  astronomer  detects  dual movement, or what appears  to  be  dual,  in  observation  of  a  remote  luminous celestial  skv  area,  and  spectroscopic  analysis  confirms apparent duality of motion, he  is  compelled by  concept  to conclude  that  two distinct  entities  are  operating  at  the single  light point under analysis. The astronomer could, but he does not, conclude that a single energy at work at the particular  celestial  sky-light  point  is  prescribing  a  double motion. 

In consideration of the astronomer's conclusion, it is here pertinent to recall previous reference to the undulating motion of sky gas, and  that  the astronomer even makes use of the word "undulating." And it may be well to remind that undulation is a double motion.

The astronomer  is  forced  to conclude  that  the motion  is attributable  to  entities  contained  in  the  astronomer's mind. And  the  entities  of  illusion  the mind  contains  are  "isolated bodies", globular  or  spheroidal,  moving  in  a  circle  or  an ellipse. Nothing  else  will  do.  In  reality,  there  exists  for telescope  lens  and  the  astronomer's  instruments  to  deter mine  nothing more  than  the  dual motion  of  got  in  a  luminous sky area which covers and obscures the stationary land under that detected sky area. The active sky gas moves, but the underlying land never participates in the movement. 

It seems singular that the astronomer determines in favor of the preconceived "circling or ellipsing bodies" in view of the fact that  he  applies  the  very meaningful  terms  "moving  back  and forth,"  "undulating,"  and  "fluctuating,"  which  deny  the preconceived  entities and  their motion. Yet his  illusion  fostered conclusions must be that the lens and the spectrum, or either, in recording such movements truly establishes tlte existence of two distinct celestial "bodies" in motion. 

To  emphasize  this most  important  feature,  it  should be noted that his conclusion of celestial "bodies" does not imply bodies  of  gas  in  keeping  with  the  dictates  of  reality  and reason.  To  him  the  illusion  persists  that  the motion  of  sky gates  signifies  the  motion  of  motionless  land  mass,  which cannot be detected under the luminous moving sky got. 

Observe  that  nothing  has  detected  or  established  even one  mass  body  in  motion,  to  say  nothing  of  two  bodies. There  has  simply  been  achieved  confirmation  of  double motion, within a certain  luminous celestial  sky area. Hence the astronomers  terms "undulating" and "fluctuating" are appropriately applied for description of the recorded movements of gaseous elements within the luminous sky area. But the terms have no further application. 

Upon that single instance of erroneous conclusion is erected an astronomical framework of abundant miscalculations. 

Having  checked  the  mechanical  findings  of  double motion with that found by direct vision, there is nothing left for the astronomer's conclusion than that which his con-cept holds: "Isolated rounded bodies circling or elllpsing in space". The  telescopic  and  photographic  lenses  have  not detected  and  recorded  them;  the  astronomer  has  not  observed  them.  They,  the  "bodies",  are  not  established  by spectrum and spectroscopic analysis. However, they are concluded  to  exist  as  isolated  globular mass  entities, when they constitute nothing more than lens-created disk areas of sky-light gas in motion. 

We may  duplicate  the  astronomer's  application  and  his findings of the celestial by returning to the loftv stratosphere observation point permitting view of terrestrial sky areas. As we adjust the telescope for observation of Portland and Bangor, Maine, on  the  east  coast  of  the  United  States, or any other section of the nation, the luminous sky areas to be detected  over  any  land  community will appear  precisely as the  luminous  celestial  areas  of  astronomical  observation appear. Our  lenses will detect nothing but a  luminous disk-like sky area. At every angle of observation and as far as our lens  can  penetrate,  we  will  observe  the  same  condition.  It would  be  ridiculous  even  to  hope  to  see  through  the  luminous terrestrial sky areas to observe the land and water* and the community life we know is underlying the sky areas. 

We may  first detect  the  sky  light over Bangor, Maine. It will  be  found  that  Bangor's  sky  light  seems  to  fluctuate. It will be prescribing the dual motion which could very readily be  misinterpreted  as  "circling  or  ellipsing"  from  proper distance.  Were  we  to  achieve  that  distance,  there  would develop  the  illusion  of  circling. And  though we might  even accept  the  illusory  movement  as  having application to the luminous  sky  area,  our  knowledge  of  the  underlying land would  dispel  the  illusion  in  relation  to  the  land  area. We would  not  fleetinelv  harbor  the  illusion  that  Bangor  had become  isolated  from  the  remainder  of  Maine  and  was executing an orbital waltz in stratosphere space. 

Making telescope adjustment to embrace terrestrial sky areas north of Bangor, we may detect a luminous terrestrial sky area  that appears  to roll. And  it will be much brighter than the "star" of Bangor. We will perhaps find on consulting our  terrestrial "star chart"  that  the bright  rolling area represents the sky over Montreal, Canada.

As  we  continue  our  telescopic  search,  there will  be  detected a  luminous  sky area west of Montreal which arouses interest. There will be a pronounced white film on the lower left  corner  of  the  sky  area.  Its  appearance  will  promote doubt  that  it  is part of  the  sky  area,  and we  shall  conclude that since it is not of the luminous sky area, it is a "nebula" in the stratosphere. 

Then, adjusting our telescope for observation of the New Hampshire sky, we shall detect a dark area in the luminous sky which our "star  chart"  designates  as  Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Magnifying that luminous sky area with a stronger  lens will  disclose the original dark spot as three distinct formations. They will be easily consinered huimps on the luminous sky area. In fact, they will so closfly resemble the astronomical "Camel Hump Cluster" in ct'estial sky light that we will be  impelled  to name  then  the "Triple Humps of Portsmouth". 

Hence it will be perceived that the conditions recorded of luminous  celestial  sky  areas,  where  light  shading  is  at  one time determined  as  a "nebula" detached  from  the  luminous sky area and on other occasions as a grotesoite formation of the  luminous area, must be  included  in record of  terrestrial sky areas. As  it has been related, corresponding  conditions have  to date been  found  in  the  luminous  terrestrial  sky over White  Sands,  New Mexico,  and  adjacent  territory. As  the sands of this Earth's desert regions are related as particles of sand, and as  the waters of  the Earth are related as wilier,  in like manner does the luminosity of every terres-trial sky area correspond to elements and conditions of celestial  sky  areas. Terrestrial  sky  gas describes  the  identical motions of celestial  sky gas. And  the observed conditions of terrestrial sky areas will  impose  the same  illusions as  those burdening astronomers empty quest of the celestial Universe about us. The  identical "stellar  spectra" will develop from analysis of  light waves  from  terrestrial  sky areas as presently developed of light movement in celestial sky areas.   

Massive astronomical compilations of the centuries have unknowingly directed man's  course away  from  observation and  comprehension  of  the  realistic  universe about us. But the cunxnt opportunity to view terrestrial sky-light function and  the  ensuing  formations  abrogates  astronomical  presentations. And  that modern  view  eloquently  attests  to  the import of ancient philosophical dictum: "On Earth as it is in Heaven".

Modern  enterprise  confirms  that what  is  to be  found  in the  celestial "Heavens" has undeniable  counterparts  in  the terrestrial "Heavens". And it has been vividly disclosed that it  is  the deceptive appearance of  things and conditions over the  land areas  of  the  Universe,  rather  than  that  which exists on land under  the celestial and  terrestrial "Heavens", which has, made  for  confusion,  thus denying acquisition of the  universe  about us.

The  same  astronomically  recorded shifts  in  the  spectrum,  from  the  longest  red  wave  to  the shortest  vio-let wave, ar,  to be  registered  from  observation and  analysis  of  terrestrial  sky-light  movement. The synonymity  of  celes-tial  and  terre  .trial  sky-light performance, meriting the same intcrpretatior, must provide evidence  for  the  least  discerning  person that astronomy's announced celestial values are purely illusory. 

It may thereby  be  perceived  that were we  to  apply  the astronomii:i>l  yardstick  to  the  terrestrial  sky's  luminous outer  surface,  c<  -  ain  areas  would,  like  the  celestial  area named Sirius, be «Saumed  to possess more  than  twenty-six times  the  Sun's  mathematical  candle  power.  The  absurd conclusion  would  develop  from  such  terrestrial  sky  area's apparent heat intensity. We repeat, apparent heat intensity.

Fantastic? How could  it be otherwise, with our physical knowledge  of  terrestrial  sky  areas? Yet,  that would  be  the inevitable  development  when  we  attempted  to  gauge  the terrestrial . ky witn the same instruments utilized by astronomy for puging the celestial sky. In such application of astronomy's gauges to terrestrial sky areas, it will be established that the red and the green waves hold no such meaning as  that which  is astronomically concluded  from celestial sky-light areas where  the colors are evidenced. The  tests  to be  .made  of  terrestrial  sky  light will  establish  the  value  of red  and  green  waves  from  terrestrial  sky  light  to  be  diametrically opposed to astronomical deduction. 

Ancient  observation  of  the  lights  detected  in  the  universe  about  us  developed  the  so-called  "star  charts," That development  was  an  artful  expression  of  the  wholesome "star"-observtng pastime. Nobody was deluded through the art of celestial fight charting. But when the same art bedecks itself with the judicial garb of science and imposes upon the world  illusory  conditions  acclaimed  to  he  real,  there  is described neither art or science.   

During  the many  centuries  of  observation,  there  should have  been  discernment  of  the  illusions.  And  the  least  that might  have  been  achieved,  was  comprehension  of  the  unfailing manner in which all creative energy must move. That movement  is  a  wave.  But  the  universally  manifested  wave motion was replaced by the astronomical fraternity with the barren  guess  of  "circling"  or  "ellipsing."  And,  strangely, such  replacement  was  made  to  sustain  theory  even  as  the wave term'received empty Up service. With that replacement from  the  world  of  the  illusory,  the  entire  astronomical structure  erected  upon  the  "circling  or  "elaps-ing"  guess becomes  purposeless  and  void. Nowhere through-out the broad  domain  of  research  in  pure  and  applied  science is there  to be experienced  the "circling" or "ellipsing" motion contained  in  and  making  the  foundation  for  celestial mechanics. Wherever such motion seems to take place, other than  in man-made mechanics at terrestrial level, it  is purely illusory. 

With  relation  to  the  motion  of  universally  dispensed energy,  it  is  timely  to relate a personal experience confirming  that creative energy, wherever manifested,  is compelled to move  in  a wave. That  holds  true  even  if  every  lens  the world possesses causes the motion to appear as circling. The lens is incapable of faithful recording, but the brain should be aware of such fact; for it is the brain that truly sees. In  the  chapter  dealing with  the  pilgrimage,  a meeting with  the  famous  physicist, Dr. Robert Andrews Millikan, then President of  the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, was described. At that time, during the summer of  1928,  Dr.  M  illikan's  able  assistant  was  Dr. Carl Anderson. And as  Dr. Anderson  conducted  this  then youthful  enthusiast  over  the  institution's  campus  to  view the  world's  first  isolated  electron,  he  remarked,  "The electron prescribes a circling motion."   In manner lacking diplomatic nicety, we responded, "It does what, Dr. Anderson?" Dr. Anderson replied, "It seems to move in a circling manner". With the same lack of diplomacy, we answered, That is better". 

Though Dr. Anderson was a very* learned physicist who was  subsequently awarded  the Nobel prize, he referred  to the  electron's seeming motion even though his brain saw the true motion. Such mention  of circling was due to the influence of the seeming motion. And the lens was responsible for that seeming condition. Yet it was known to one who had never observed an electron that the basic and irrefutable principles of motion precluded any possibility  that  the electron performed any circling.

In  the  case  of  the mathematico-astronomer  it  is  found that,  despite  knowledge  of  the wave  and  bend  of  energy, there  is a persistent adherence  to  the  seeming, or  illusory, motion. His  unswerving  devotion  to  the  illusory  demands denial of the authentic motion in all astronomical observations and conclusions. Hence result the numerous miscalculations of that motion's distance and speed from the astronomical  point  of  observation. And  it  precludes  possibility for understanding of  the heat engendered at  the  luminous celestial sky area where the motion is detected. 

No structure in a world of reality can be sustained on a...
--->LINK to READ
--->LINK to READ

...assumed  at  celestial  level would  have  application  to  terrestrial areas  under  investigation  from  any  part  of  the  celestial. 

Though  it  is  definitely  known  that  such  mathematized  and assumed  celestial  conditions  do  not  exist  on  terrestrial  land areas  or  in  luminous  sky  areas,  they would  have  to  be mathematically concluded  to exist,  if  tor no better  reason  than  that of  sustaining  the  doctrine  "Figures  do  not  lie/'  Though  God forsake His kingdom and  the Universe collapse,  the figurative must prevail; the figure must never be ques-tioned. For if there be no Universe,  the  figure will create one. And  if  there be no Creator or Creative Force, the figure will adequately replace it. So says the figurer. 

Astronomy holds a unique, most unenviable position.  It  is unlike  any  fruitful  science  known  to  man.  Its  premise  is eternal, though it be the most illusory ever established.   

Philosophy,  seeking  to  find behind  things  and events  their laws and eternal relations, dares to abandon a premise found to be at variance with  fact. Only  in  such manner can philosophy continue  to  seek  for,  determine,  and  interpret  values  in  the world  of  reality.  Though  philosophy's  broad  horizons  extend the  things  and  conditions  of  the  physical  world  into  the metaphysical  realm,  there  is  ever  a  continuity  of  pattern wherein  things and conditions for a physical plane continue  to be  reasonably identified  on  the  meta-physical  plane.  But despite its broad scope, philosophy need not resort to figurative definition of  its  transcendent values. Obscuring  equations and symbols  are  not  required  for  co-herent  description  of  factual values interpretable by words. Where there is a fact to convey, words will be found to express it. But when there are no facts, mathematical sym-bols very formidably obscure the condition.

Astronomy,  claiming  to  interpret  the  physical  Universe, possesses knowledge of neither the beginning nor the end of its telescopic domain. Nor has  that domain origin or ending  in a wond  of  reality.  Sky  gases  misinterpreted  as  land  mass  can hardly be  considered  expressive  of  reality. Nor  can  the  gross misinterpretation of energy's wave motion  to be prescribing a "circling" or "ellipsing" motion assist man's comprehension  of  the  created  and  realistic  Universe  and afford closer attunement with the infinite.   

"The  Heavens  proclaim  the  glory  of  God."  And  they would  proclaim  that  glory  if  a  telescope  had  never  been invented. After centuries of  telescopic astronomy, man beholds the same luminous splendor displayed for his earliest ancestors. He  sees no more  and he knows no more of the celestial "Heavens above". 

Though  telescopes have  found more points  of  light  for the  telescopic  lens,  they  continue  to  be  incompetent  to penetrate such  light points and  to permit determination of realistic value attaching to the lights and what is under the lights. Further,  the  abstract mathematical  values  imposed on lights detected have so distorted real created values that they  have  become  progressively  more  obscure  with  each advancing year of telescopic detection and astronomical interpretation.  In  fact,  the  abstract mathematicians  have  so mathematized  the  real  Universe  that  it  has  been made  a figurative Universe where only mathematical symbols may dwell. 

Therefore, one  can both mentally and physically  indulge the  real Universe  through  understanding  of  the  importance of current events. Then can one  fully benefit  from  the creative splendor of celestial sky  light, despite the obscuring and distorting  astro-mathematical  conclusions  resulting from basic fallacy representing astronomy's Prima Causa.

Timely understanding of cosmic values recently discovered enable one to discern why a great churchman, the late William  Cardinal O'Connell, Archbishop  of  Boston,  publicly  denounced  the  atheistic  tendencies  of  abstruse mathematics in the summer of 1927. At that time, His Eminence confided,  "Science  is  going  around  in  circles.''  The unprece-dented  events  of  our  time,  as  here  recorded, eloquently attest that if the phrase "going around in circles ever merited application it could nave no better application than  to  that  abstract  science  of  astrophysics  that  the cardinal had in mind. 

The cardinal's timely observation was subsequently amplified by the late Garrett P. Serviss, who wrote of the author of  that  "beneficent"  mathematical  postulate:  "As concerns the intellect of the average person, he  is responsible for having let loose from their caves a bevy of blind bats whose wild circling  in  the  limelight  of  publicity  draws  dreary  gleams around the moorland of everyday oommonsense".

Where  is the meaning  in mathematical gymnastics providing  a  presumptive  estimate  of  our  Sun's  weight  one billion or ten billion years in the past? The meaning is less, if  there  could  be  less meaning, when  other mathematical dictums contradict the estimate and establish that the Sun's realistic magnitude and function is unknown.

What meaning to "the life of a 'star'" and its mathematized weight? And if every word of that question had application  to  a  world  of  reality,  what  would  it  contribute toward  man's  comprehension  and  acquisition  of  the universe about us?

What value to the astronomical estimates of thirty thousand million, two hundred thousand million, and five hundred  thousand  million  celestial  light  points,  when  the mean-ing  of  just  one  point  of  light  is  not  understood, at least not by the astronomer?

No  physical science could or would accept for three weeks,  to  say  nothing  of  three  centuries,  the  illusions of astronomy. The  physical  sciences  could  and would  determine the reality of premise before elaborating on the premise.  But  what  could  astronomy  do?  The  astronomer's power-ful mathematical conveyor could not take him to the celestial sky-light points under investigation.

In geology, biology, physics, chemistry, anatomy, botany, the  findings are  substantially  rooted  in  the world of  reality. And  though at  times  figures are applied  in  such  truly scientific  endeavor,  they have basis  in  reality  rather  than  in  illusion. They  are  intended  to  enlarge  but  never  to  distort  the basic  reality,  and  the  mathematical  results,  though  always subject  to  direct  and  most  critical  scrutiny  by  brain  sight rather  than  lens  sight,  are  immediately  questioned,  and  as readily rejected, if tney are at variance with fact.

Within the broad scope of positive and applied sciences, where the  formula  for  duplication  of man  is  unknown,  the  fact  is  freely admitted. Abstruse figures are not paraded to assume the laboratory making  of  a  real  human  being  or  to  facilitate  the  deception  of having made a super Franken-stein monster to replace man.

What value could possibly attach to the mathematical making of a single drop of blood which  the combined sci-ences are unable to reproduce  in  laboratories  of  a  world  of  reality?  In  spite  of  the mathematical formula, the Red Cross would be obliged to continue the more realistic practice of extracting blood from the veins where Creative Force caused it to be installed and where only Nature, agile agent  of  that  Force,  is  capable  of  reproducing  it. Would  the most precise  and  positive  dictums  of  Immanuel  Kant's  infinite  mathematics  actually  provide  a  single  drop  of  blood?  As  concerns  a world  of  reality  infinite  mathematics  are  as  nebulous  as  infinite space.

Contrary  to  all  scientific  endeavor  and  conclusions within  an established  order  of  reality,  the  mathematical  astronomer  is privileged to create mathematized entities having no rela-tion to the world and die order of reality. Further, he is permitted to distort and obscure  entities  abiding  in  a world  of  reality  through  the  play  of abstruse mathematics.

A  most  important  aspect  of  that  world  of  reality  is  the  sky which envelops the world's land and water, vegetation and life. And its luminous outer surface mystifies men with unique performances against  the  dark  curtain  of  infinity's  stage.  It  presents  the  most intriguing spectacle in the Eternal Theater owned by that unknown Peerless  Producer  of  celes-tial  and  terrestrial  drama.  That magnificent Universe Pro-ducer endowed the most remote celestial area  with  the  identical  physical  values  common  to  this  known terrestrial area where we dwell.

And  in  the  creative  course  of  such  transcendent  production, there was also evolved  the brain of man. The Producer  intended  it as a  formidable agent  to check and correct  the  illusions developed from man's feeble observation of the creative production. Every celestial mile of that production known as  the Universe  is as realistic as  this Earth area  is. And  it  is  denied  such  created  realism  only  as  a  result  of terrestrial man's faulty observation and faultier interpretation. Where  the Producer  intended  the brain  to  see  truly, man isolates the brain and delegates its duties to the lens. It doesn't work.

Therefore  the  roads  of  illusion  are  everywhere.  As  they have been proven to exist through actual photographs over the luminous terrestrial sky areas of White Sands, New York City, and elsewhere, they extend over every luminous sky area of the entire  Universe.  There  is  not  a  mile  of  that  celestial  area described by the astronomer's so-called "star" chart, or factual sky chart, which does not present the identical road of illusions to be encountered in every journey over the illusion-producing luminous outer sky areas of our Earth.

Since  that  claim  was  first made  in  the  year  1927,  the stratosphere  ascents  and  the  lengthy  series  of U.S. Naval Research Bureau rocket nights have procured photographs of  luminous  and  deceptively  isolated  globular  terrestrial sky areas confirming the claim beyond a question of doubt.

"With eyes ye see not, yet believe what ye see not".


Nessun commento:

Posta un commento