Inainte de anul aparitiei lucrarii lui Koppernigk, De Revolutionibus (un citat minunat mai jos), au existat doar 12 oameni, toti membrii ai aceleiasi societati secrete, Brotherhood of the Sun (Rosenkreuzer), si anume: Yajnavalkya, Aryabhatta, Madhava si Bhaskara in India (secta orientala a Fratiei Soarelui, Surya Yoga), Platon, Eratosthenes, Eudoxus si Aristotel (scoala lui Platon a idolatrizarii Soarelui/Osiris/Sirius B), si Philolaus, Aristarchus, Herakleides si Seleucus (scoala lui Pitagora, tot de idolatrizare a Soarelui/Elementului Foc)...
Koppernigk, Galileo, Bruno (arestat de Inchizitie pentru publicarea cartii De Vinculis in Genere si pentru practicile sale de magie neagra, invatate de la John Dee, seful suprem Rosenkreuzer in Europa, discipolul sau fiind Francis Bacon, fondatorul London Royal Society, si nicidecum pentru vreo afirmatie despre vreun sistem planetar), Kepler, Newton faceau parte tot din Rosenkreuzer.
Tycho Brahe, cel mai faimos astronom din toate timpurile, avea la dispozitie 34 de volume cu date precise despre sistemul planetar geocentric, si aratase greselile imense din opera lui Koppernigk. J. Kepler, un astrolog marunt, a fost trimis sa intre in preajma lui Brahe, pe care l-a otravit in 1601, pentru a ii sustrage cele 34 de volume.
Kepler si-a copiat cele trei legi care ii poarta numele din Aryabhattya; in timp ce Newton si-a copiat toate rezultatele din analiza matematica/fizica din sutrele indiene ale scolii de matematica/fizica de la Kerala (si Leibnitz si-a copiat rezultatele tot de acolo; lovitura data de rosicrucienii a fost geniala: oferirea unui presupus conflict in vazul lumii, intre Newton si Leibnitz (amandoi initiati rosicrucieni), astfel incat atentia publicului sa fie deturnata de la intrebarile esentiale care ar fi trebuie sa si le puna privind sursa adevarata a conceptelor de analiza matematica pe care acestia le-au publicat...si nu au fost singurii...John Wallis, James Gregory au publicat si ei rezultate inexplicabile, fara demonstratii, din analiza matematica, care coincideau perfect cu alte lucrari publicate mai bine de o mie de ani inainte), legaturile comerciale dintre orasul unde exista cea mai mare scoala de matematica/fizica a antichitatii/evului mediu si Europa fiind binecunoscute de peste 3.000 de ani...).
Mai mult Newton a copiat cuvant cu cuvant opera marelui om de stiinta arab, Ibn Al-Haytham, publicand mai tarziu, Opticks.
Tot din Rosenkreuzer faceau parte G. Gamow si E. Hubble, autorii teoriei Big Bang/Expanding Universe...
Din Hubble:
" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe
or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”
Acest unknown principle este aetherul, de unde provin neutrinii, radiatia numita neutron, efectul Compton si multe altele...
Hubble made two mistakes:
The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.
The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).
The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.
Toate misiunile Nasa/Space Shuttle/Mir au fost falsificate...am la dispozitie toate dovezile/explicatiile...pana si D. Prunariu a fost si este membru Rosenkreuzer, vezi:
http://www.masonicforum.ro/ro/nr14/prunariu.htmlToate fotografiile de pe Hubble Telescope sunt absolut false, realizate pe calculator, asa cum au fost falsificate si toate pozele misiunii Voyager, Nasa a ascuns ca avea acces la virtual reality landscape software inca din 1969; inexplicabile atat sub teoria Big Bang cat si sub cealalta "teorie", superstring theory...
Pozele cu English Channel iti arata clar ca nu exista nici un fel de curbura vizuala la suprafata Pamantului; iar Pamantul nu poate fi si plat si rotund in acelasi timp...poti sa-ti faci propriul tau experiment care sa-ti arate ca nu exista curbura la suprafata; pe o plaja/litoral, o distanta de 9,6 km, curbura fiind de 1,8 metri; te indepartezi de un prim grup, in timp ce privesti prin luneta/binoclu performant, pana atingi distanta de 9,6 km...
Soarele/Luna sunt discuri aplatizate...asa cum se poate vedea de la orice observator astronomic...toate celelalte planete sunt discuri aplatizate...orbiteaza pe acelasi principiu pe care zboara si un UFO...pe orbite in forma de EPICLICLURI, care au fost modificate de Kepler in elipse...
Iata harta adevarata a Polului Nord, daca crezi sau nu, facuta la inceputul sec. XVI, de catre cel mai faimos dintre matematicienii Rosenkreuzer, adica Gerald Kremer, cunoscut sub numele de Mercator...
http://www.helmink.com/Antique_Map_Mercator_Arctic/Antique_Map_Mercator_Arctic.jpgNimeni, nici un submarin, sau expeditie nu a ajuns vreodata dincolo de o anumita latitudine...Peary si Cook nu au descoperit niciodata Polul Nord...zona dincolo de Oceanul Interior nu este accesibila sau vizibila...acolo se afla Garden of Eden, sau Gradina din Eden...
Iata adevarata a continentelor, care era in posesia lui Columb (global Piri Reis map):
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/e/000e97gt_pem6hbvo.gifCum se vad continentele de sus:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/9/m/000e97gt_9mg9xmq1.jpg (aici autorul diagramei a exagerat cu inelul de gheata Antarctica, dincolo de Antarctica se gasesc teritoriile descoperite de amiralul R. Byrd, 1929, 1946-1947, si unde s-au adapostit nazistii, care au parasit Germania/Norvegia in mai 1945)
O alta diagrama a continentelor/orbita Soarelui/Lunii:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/test1.jpgMai sunt si altele, mult mai extraordinare, dar nu le pot include aici...
Si acum citatul promis din Koppernigk (al nostru Copernic), adoratorul Soarelui:
In regard to his cosmology, Copernicus consistently appealed to the 'harmony' of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun that he personified, and, some say, deified, way beyond what we now know as its ability to convert helium into hydrogen. Copernicus writes:
In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).
Karl Popper shows the origin of these cultic ideas:
Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status.then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).
Popper couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus' brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes:
In the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus (The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).
Upon reading Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance of philosophical and humanistic arguments that he brings to his aid. As J. D. Bernal notes: '[Copernicus'] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,' and in a later edition he is more convinced that the 'reasons were mystical rather than scientific' (Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965). Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical appendages to them (e.g., his view that the universe is infinite and therefore cannot have a center). Very few of his arguments are based on his own personal observations, since Copernicus merely reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus concludes that because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology.
