"Worlds Beyond the Poles" (Book) by A. F. Giannini. -Flat Earth-: As on Earth, so in Heaven..

---

Chapter Seven

"ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN"

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...

CLICK ON THE PICTURES TO CONTINUE READING...

--->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".