The Atheist Perversion of Reality

April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew

Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.

What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.

The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.

In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.

Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:

(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.

(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”

(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.

(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.

(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.

As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”

How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”

In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.

From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”

For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.

Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.

Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.

This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”

Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.

To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.

Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.

This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.

We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.

First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?

Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.

Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.

But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.

Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.

Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.

In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.

And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.

Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.

Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

April 4, 2009

[Alamo-Girl]

That is, he is part of the very same system that he observes, and moreover his observation ineluctably "disturbs" the system he's observing.... There is a certain sense in which the subjectivity inherent in perception is not reducible to zero. And that is why, I suppose, the uncertainty principle (a/k/a/ the indeterminacy principle) is not confined just to the quantum world, but is a constant feature of Reality at all scales.

Indeed. Even at the root, cognition marks a successful communication which reduces uncertainty (Shannon entropy, information theory.) And if molecular machinery is involved, upon receipt of the message heat is dissipated into the local environment paying the thermodynamic tab. And the cause/effect chain continues.

Where there is an observer, there is life and cause/effect simply by its making an observation even if the object observed is not apparently, directly affected (e.g. quantum measurement v. looking at a mountain.)

Thank you for sharing your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[TXnMA]

mrjesse: I have answered your "'Pluto' question".

Since you have stated that the time-of-flight of light is a valid measure of distance (out to 6.8 light-hours, at least...), how do you manage to reconcile the photo that I posted in #639 with your

"It certainly is true that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 7k years ago. Indeed, I have not found that science has demonstrated that the earth is billions of years old."

Are you making the claim that the farthest object in that photo is no more than 7000 light-years distant from Earth?

[Alamo-Girl]

The only question seems to be is if there is some hypothetical being outside of space/time (reality as we know it) could other rules apply to that being?

God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for about a half century and counting.

Is it safe to say that no one is questioning the Theory of Relativity, QM or basic observational physics in our space/time?

We have mentioned a few more recent theories (e.g. Vafa, Wesson, Tegmark, Fineman) which build on Special and General Relativity. As far as I can see, no one has been advocating these theories but rather using them as examples. More specifically, these are theories which can be put to the test, e.g. prediction, observation, falsifiability.

Of course beyond these theories are things which are unknown and unknowable. Among them are the possible existence of massless particles or waves which have no measurable direct or indirect affects. Likewise, we cannot know the precise number and types of dimensions (temporal/spatial, compactified/expanded.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Truly, no physical thing is at rest in the universe.

A fly in your car is going 5 mph. That is his speed from his perspective as the observer.

But your car is speeding down the road at 65 mph. So for the guy watching you from the roadside table, that fly is going 70 mph.

But the road you have taken is on the equator and the circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles and the earth rotates once every 24 hours. So that fly is now going 1,100 mph + 70 mph = 1,170 mph.

Moreover, the orbital length of earth traveling around the sun is 149,600,000 miles, traveled in 365.25 days. That is 67,000 miles per hour. So add that in, and the fly is going 68,170 mph.

The sun orbits the Milky Way galaxy at a speed of 486,000 miles per hour. Add that in, and the fly is now going 554,170 miles per hour.

All of this and we haven’t gotten to the accelerating expansion of the universe, i.e. space/time itself. Space/time doesn’t pre-exist – it is created as the universe expands.

A galaxy 1 million light years away would seem to be moving away from us at a rate of 60,000 miles per hour. For every 3.26 million light years further out that we look, the galaxies seem to be moving away from us at an additional 162,000 miles per hour. In sum, the universe is currently at least 156 billion light years wide.

And that is looking at motion from the fly’s perspective. If we go in the other direction as "observer" – the quantum – the cumulative velocities are even more mind-boggling

[Alamo-Girl]

The method to my madness is to suggest a universe of such astounding complexity, and yet of such astounding order — and purpose — such that it could have had only a divine origin.

Whether you've noticed it or not, that is my basic motive for writing, here or anyplace else these days.

I have noticed! And I thank God for you!

[LeGrande]

Try this on for size: The complementarity principle and the superposition principle are the dual constituents of yet another, "higher" (i.e., more general) complementarity. Think of it as a fractal sort of thing....

Hmm, I gather fractal is a division of sorts? How do you divide Energy and Time or Position and Momentum?

[Alamo-Girl]

Seems to me whenever the age of the universe is being discussed, relativity is brushed off the table and the debate continues as if time is absolute and universal.

The universe is some 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates

and

the universe is some 6 thousand years old from the inception space/time coordinates.

As another thought experiment: a star transmitted a photon when it was a billion light years away from earth's position and yet that photon didn't arrive for 10 billion light years. The transmitting star is likely long gone.

The photon didn't slow down, it continued on its way at the speed of light (a null path.)

But while it was in route, space/time itself expanded.

[xzins]

And if I squish it, ‘cause it’s messing with my driving, my arm is going 554,171+ mph

I hate flies in my car while I’m driving.

:>)

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! And yet, true!

[LeGrande]

That is, he is part of the very same system that he observes, and moreover his observation ineluctably "disturbs" the system he's observing.... There is a certain sense in which the subjectivity inherent in perception is not reducible to zero. And that is why, I suppose, the uncertainty principle (a/k/a/ the indeterminacy principle) is not confined just to the quantum world, but is a constant feature of Reality at all scales.

No, it is not the 'observation' disturbing the system that limits its accuracy. It comes down to one or the other. The more accurately energy is known the less accurately time actually is. If it was possible to know exactly the momentum, position would actually cease to exist.

It is also the same reason why an electron doesn't spiral in to the nucleus. Nature doesn't allow both the position and momentum to exist with 100% accuracy.

[xzins]

Tell me straight-up, AG, with an arm that goes as fast as mine...

do I have a future as a baseball hall of fame pitcher?

[mrjesse]

Said TXnMA:Since you have stated that the time-of-flight of light is a valid measure of distance (out to 6.8 light-hours, at least...), how do you manage to reconcile the photo that I posted in #639 with your

"It certainly is true that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days about 7k years ago. Indeed, I have not found that science has demonstrated that the earth is billions of years old."

Are you making the claim that the farthest object in that photo is no more than 7000 light-years distant from Earth?

TXnMA, Someone else asked me that very question, and I answered it here.

Look for paragraph 10, which starts out with DallasMike asking me "How do you explain being able to see something 2.9 million light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?"

I most certainly am NOT making any claim that the farthest object in that photo is no more than 7000 light-years distant from Earth.

-Jesse

I'll reproduce my earlier response to that question here for you:

How do you explain being able to see something 2.9 million light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old?

Simple: I believe that, in the begining, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1.)

Obviously I believe the Biblical account of the creation of everything. It's a faith, but most people do have a beyond demonstratable-science faith for the begining of matter, whether it be God speaking things into being, or the big bang, which, according to Berkeley, says that there was nothing and then the vacuum fluctuated and a singularity was born which then turned into the first matter. Now, as a scientist, you know that something from nothing just doesn't happen. Show me if otherwise is true!

So considering that I believe that in the Begining God created the heavens and the earth, is it unreasonable for me to believe that the earth is only ~6k years old? I think not.

But let me tell you a little bit about what it's like to be an engineer who designs and builds things. You build things for a purpose, to do a certain task. The Bible says that God created man in his own image.

It stands to reason that when God creates something, he too does it for a certain reason - to do a specific job. So let us pretend that we're going to design and build a battery maintainance device which feeds a small bit of electrical current into a motorhome battery to prevent it it from going dead over the winter. This device only puts out a small amperage but it's enough to keep the battery full if it was already full. Now let's say someone comes along and examines this device and says "This is crazy! This device would take a hundred years to charge the battery! And this battery is full! This battery must have been on this charger for a hundred years!"

The truth is, of course, that the battery and the maintainer device were not made as a dating system, and the battery started out full, and the maintainer device just kept it full. The battery is there to provide starting power, and I would install a fresh fully charged battery - not to provide a dating method, but to do a job, right away, which required it to be fully charged.

So I'm arguing that God created the sun, the moon, and the stars for a reason other then for us to date them with. The Bible says exactly what God created the sun, the moon, and the stars for:

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
(Gen 1:16-18)

Ahah! God made them to rule over the night! As a matter of fact, the stars have been used for marine navigation forever!

So if we know that God created the stars for a reason - to rule over the night like the sun rules over the day, then what would we expect? Well, if they are to be used for navigation, they need to be pretty far away so they aren't just as much a moving target as the earth is. But on the other hand, they'd have to be visible from earth - which means in order for God to fullfill his objective, he'd have to also make the light in transit. Remember, he made them as a tool, to perform a task, so we would expect them to be fully functional - without having to wait billions of years. And if God created the heavens and the earth and things that make light, do you think he'd have a problem creating light?

Another example is Adam, which by the way, the Bible says And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. -- See? Even man was created for a certain task - tending the garden!

Anyway, back to Adam, whom God formed from the dust of the earth. (Gen 2:7)

So do you suppose that when God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils Adam came alive but found himself completely starving hungry, as weak as a baby and just as smart? I dare say not so! You see, God formed Adam for a purpose to do a job and he made him ready to do it.

And the Bible clearly states the reason for the stars - and that is to rule over the night like the sun rules over the day. He made them as tools to do a job. He didn't make them as a dating service.

So the short answer to your question is "I believe God created the stars to be seen from earth, and part of God's creation included making his newly created tool useful right away."

Does that answer your question?

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse:"For an observer on earth at a point in time when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours, when Pluto appears directly overhead, will it really be 102 degrees off - and not even really in the night sky? "

Replied TXnMA: Yes.

Splended! Now, can you find a single scientific source that agrees with you?

If Pluto orbited the earth every 24 hours rather then the earth turning under pluto, you'd be right because the light from pluto proceeds in a generally straight line once it leaves pluto. So if Pluto actually moved 102 degrees, then the direction from which the light was coming would be different then the actual position of Pluto. But I've got some delicate news for you :-) The 102 degrees per 6.8 hours is due to the earth's rotation in place!

And so since Pluto didn't move much during that 6.8 hours, the light will still be coming from where Pluto is because Pluto still is where it was 6.8 hours ago!

Anyway, if you still really believe your answer above, then please answer the following color-coded questions which you have not yet answered. Thanks a million!

For the sake of our discussion, LeGrande and I agreed that the gravitational pull of the heavenly body in question would indicate its exact actual current position. Whether gravity actually works that is completely besides the point - we just needed a handle to put on it for the thought experiment.

If you don't have time to answer them all at first, please just answer the red one!

-Jesse

The Red question - 12 light hour away planet:

For an observer on earth who is looking at a bright and stationary planet that is 12 light hours away and is above the earth's equator, at the instant that said planet appears in the east will it really be in the west? Will its gravity be pulling in the opposite direction of where the light appears to come from at that instant?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Green question: Pluto

For an observer on earth who looks up and sees Pluto when it is overhead and when it is 6.8 light hours away, at that instant in time, will Pluto really be about 102 degrees away from where it appears? Will it really appear directly overhead at the moment it is really below the horizon?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.
TXnMA's answer:Yes.

The Blue question: if the sun were 10 light days away

If the sun were 10 light days away, and the earth was suddenly stopped, do you believe that the sun would continue to appear to rise and set for another 10 days?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Yellow question: Turntable at north pole tracking the sun

Let's say that you are standing on a turntable at the North Pole. Lets also say that the turntable (and its pointer) is tracking and pointing at the Suns gravity field (its actual position). Will the pointer on the turntable be pointing at* the light that you see or will it be leading or lagging that light by 2.1 degrees? (*Note: by "at" I mean "within about 20 arcseconds")
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Lavender question: 17 minute merry go around tilted toward Polaris

Let us say that I tilted up my merry go around so that it's top pointed directly at the north star (Polaris to be specific) and furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Purple question: 17 minute merry go around on north pole

Let us say that I had a merry go around on the North Pole furthermore let us say that I got it spinning at exactly 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes with reference to the position of the sun -- at the instant that the sun appeared almost exactly in my face, would it really be behind my head? In other words, would the light be coming from about the exact opposite direction from where the sun's gravity would be pulling - at any instant in time?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

The Aqua question: 17 minute day vs 17 minute merry go around revolution.

You (LeGrande) said that If the earth were turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.5 minutes, the sun's optical image would be lagged 180 degrees from its real position.

But then you say that if I was on a merry go around that was turning at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, and the sun appeared on the horizon, the sun's apparent position would not be 180 degrees displaced from its actual position.

So how come, by your theory, would the earth's hypothetical rotational rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes, for an observer on earth at an instant in time, cause the sun's gravitational pull and light to come from opposite directions from eachother, when for an observer on a merry go around turning at the same rate, it would not?
LeGrande's Answer: Refuses to answer so far.

[Fichori]

“At the time the observer is facing away from the sun, (blessed with dark skies and good visibility) he observes photons from Pluto that were emitted from it 6.8 hours (102 degrees) earlier -- while the observer's telescope position was still in full sunlight. Pluto is 6.8 light-hours distant; the observer's location on this rotating ball of mud simply dictates whether he is in position to observe its emitted light -- or not...” [excerpt]

Hmmm.

If you were standing on the north poll, on a counter rotating turn table that turned 1 turn per 24 hours(to cancel out Earths rotation), would Pluto's optical image still be displaced 102° from it actual position?


Perhaps this is clearer.

If you stood on the north pole with a protractor, and kept zero degrees pointing at the Sun, and watched the angle between Pluto and the Sun, how many degrees of change as measured between Pluto and the Sun would occur in 6.8 hours?

[mrjesse]

Said MrJesse:For an observer on earth at a point in time when Pluto is 6.8 light hours away and the earth rotates 102 degrees in 6.8 hours, when Pluto appears directly overhead, will it really be 102 degrees off - and not even really in the night sky?

Replied LeGrande: You cavalierly say "at a point in time", well, which point in time? When the light reflected off of Pluto or when the reflected light hit your eyeball?

You see, I didn't only say "A point in time" but I also said "For an observer on earth.."!

An observer observes. And the fact is that when an observer on earth looks up to observe Pluto, there are two bits of information which are both valid at a (the same) point in time - the point of observation: One question is "Where is Pluto really?" and the other is "Where does pluto appear to be?."

It is sort of saying "I see two lights, 12 degrees apart." If that's what I observe then that's what I observe. It doesn't matter how far they are, and it doesn't matter how many degrees they are away from anything else, and it doesn't matter how long it took the light to reach the observer - it is still a valid and complete observation to say "I observed two lights, 12 degrees apart."

If you will remember, we agreed for the purpose of our discussion that a sensitive gravity meter could be used to determine the exact actual current position of a heavenly body. So it is perfectly valid for me to ask along the lines of "For an observer on earth at a point in time, is the angular displacement between Pluto's actual position and apparent position really 102 degrees when it's 6.8 light hours away..."

Any attempt to talk about the different points in time (like when the light bounced off of Pluto or whatever) is besides the point and just an effort to run us off track to avoid answering the real question.

Let us say that you see the reflected light from Pluto on the horizon (0 degrees) and at that precise moment (from your perspective) there is a nuclear explosion that obliterates Pluto. When and how many degrees from the horizon do you need to be looking in order to see the explosion?

Assuming that Pluto is on the horizon and rising, and is 6.8 light hours away, here's what would happen:

Pluto would still appear to rise like normal for 6.8 hours, and would appear traverse up from the initial horizin about 102 degrees, then vanish from site. But the light during those 6.8 hours would still continue to come from where Pluto had been before it exploded because Pluto just doesn't move much in 6.8 hours relative to the earth.

So you'd have to wait 6.8 hours to see the explosion, and it would appear 102 degrees "above" the original horizon, not because Pluto moved 102 degrees after exploding, but because the earth rotated 102 degrees after the explosion.

But this is all besides the question of where the gravity/actual position is as compared to the apparent optical position!

I have two questions? Where did all the water go when God created the earth and do you dispute Einsteins Theory of Relativity?

Amazing! What's wrong here? I, the Creationist, want to talk about science, and LeGrande, the Athiest, keeps bringing up religion!

But in answer to your question:

First one: You don't even believe that God created the earth, so you're certainly not going to believe what I might tell you that God did with some water when he created the earth! ha ha ha.

Second question:

I'm not actually highly versed in all the specifics of Einsteins Theory of Relativity. I skimmed through his paper on it as a youngster, and then again a few minutes ago before replying, and I did not see anything that I dispute. Could you be more specific? I hope you're not just trying to change the subject!

As I have explained before, I am not saying that thing's don't appear to move across the sky as the earth rotates. I'm well aware that things appear to move across the sky at the rate of 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes. I've also found that by spinning on the merry go around, I can get things to move across the sky at the rate of 360 degrees per second.

But there is a vast difference between spinning and being orbited - and that is this: When spinning, the light takes a path from the source to you in a straight line between the source and you. When you are being orbited, the source moves aver emitting the light, and so by the time the light arrives to your eyes, the source has moved and will no longer be where the light's angle causes it to appear to be.

In other words, the light is a third body!

It would be soooo helpful if you'd answer my color coded questions!

So I'm well aware that if I turn on a merry go around at the rate of 180 degrees per 8.3 minutes it will cause the sun to appear to go around at that same rate, but it will not cause the sun's gravity to pull east while the sun appears in the west.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

mrjesse - “But there is a vast difference between spinning and being orbited - and that is this: When spinning, the light takes a path from the source to you in a straight line between the source and you. When you are being orbited, the source moves aver emitting the light, and so by the time the light arrives to your eyes, the source has moved and will no longer be where the light’s angle causes it to appear to be.”

take a look at this illustration -

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module1_Inertial.htm

What it is demonstrating is that there is no difference between being orbited or spinning. It is all about inertial frames of reference.

So back to your Pluto question. You seem to understand that if Pluto was orbiting a stationary earth you would need to lead it by 102 degrees to hit it with a missile traveling at the speed of light. Well it so happens that if Pluto is stationary you will need to lead it by 102 degrees if you are shooting that missile from a rotating Earth. There is no difference between the inertial frames as far as the two observers in them are concerned.

Now go back to the animation and carefully step through it. You will notice that the ball appears to travel straight to the receiver (from his perspective) in both examples and the ball appears to curve to the senders left (from the senders perspective) in both examples and the ball takes the same path each time over the base of the merry go round.

[LeGrande]

I just thought of a simpler example, duck hunting. If you are in the back of a pickup and a duck comes flying by at 60 mph you have to lead it by a few degrees to hit it. Now lets say you are in the pickup driving 60 miles an hour by a pond with a duck sitting in it. Well if you want to hit the duck you are going to have to lead it by a few degrees.

The angle of lead will be precisely the same in both circumstances, it doesn’t matter whether the bird is flying 60 mph and the truck is stopped or the Truck is moving 60 mph and the bird is stopped, the lead angle will be the same. It is the exact same analogy with Pluto orbiting a stopped Earth or a spinning Earth and a stopped Pluto.

[Hank Kerchief]

Quoting me, “Here is the primary problem with using the so-called uncertainty principle as the basis of logical argument—it makes every argument self-contradictory and therefore invalid.”

Then you said, “No it doesn’t Hank. It just makes arguments indeterminate, incomplete. This doesn’t necessarily make arguments invalid — unless determinism is the result you wanted corroborated from the get-go, and you won’t take ‘no!’ for an answer. But that’s ‘a horse of a different color.’

“In which case one could understand the dim view of folks who believe that knowledge isn’t knowledge unless it’s “certain” knowledge; who tend to hold a hostile opinion towards people who don’t agree with them, especially those who have the temerity to produce non-conforming evidence.”

Do you mean “argument” or “propositions?” Arguments can be indeterminate, and in formal logic there is a whole collection of such arguments. A proposition or statement, if it has meaning is always determinate. e.g. “the man is dead,” “the girl is pregnant,” “it is raining.” Either the man is dead, or he isn’t. Being able to detect that he’s dead might be difficult, but eventually it will be known whether he was or wasn’t, because his actual state cannot be indeterminate, only our knowledge of it. Same with the pregnant girl, eventually that actual state will be known, but our knowledge or lack does not determine the state.

Facts have nothing to do with what I want, and often I’d prefer for them to be different.

I do not know who thinks knowledge that is not certain knowledge is not knowledge at all. That’s certainly not me. The only thing I say is that the fact some knowledge is uncertain does not mean all knowledge is uncertain. There is a difference.

As for accepting non-conforming evidence, today it is the field of science, which has become much more like a religioin than science, shuns heaps of “non-conforming” evidence.

“The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics”

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html

Now I have a question. You know about Shrodinger’s cat. Are you of the view the cat is truly neither dead or alive? or do you think, in reality it must be one or the other, but the uncertainty principle just makes it impossible to “know” without actually looking?

By the way, there is some “non-conforming evidence” that casts serious doubt on the uncertaintly principle. You’d be willing to look at that, wouldn’t you?

Hank

[Alamo-Girl]

I was raising a more fundamental point.

The observer is part of the system he is observing. The act of observation is a state change both physical and non-physical, i.e. Shannon entropy is reduced, thermodynamic entropy is increased. And both are part of a cause/effect chain of events.

The system is always disturbed by an observation having been made.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! I don't see why not!