Friday, March 28, 2014

The god words

". . . we really ought to get free from the seduction of words!” -- Friedrich Nietzsche (BGEI.16)

I've done an intense study of physics and some philosophy over the past years, especially this past year. And of course I have written much on this blog. Take this how you want, but I am more or less convinced that many worship concepts. Back in the day people worshiped gods and idols, but now they worship concepts. Most of these concepts are poorly understood or used without definition. And this lends credence to the idea that people worship what they do not understand.

I call the names that refer to these poorly understood and undefined ideas:

god words

Here are some examples of god words:

Quantum State

. . .
there are more

Words hold a sort of power, so to speak.  And Nietchze was right. Words can be seductive.  And this has nothing to do with the words, and everything to do with us.  If I see anyone using these names listed above without a clear, consistent, crisp, unambiguous and non-contradictory definition I get suspicious.  And you should too.  I am at the point now where I think we no longer need the idea space.  Space is no longer a word concept, it is a European god that doesn't exist, like Zeus.

Just think of a word such as consciousness.  They say that this word is undefinable.  So much time and money have been spent in service to this word alone.  So much language has been spit out in service to this 'god' word.  It is staggering and astonishing how people are in awe of such a petty word that wasn't even used as today until Locke came along and gave an irrational definition of it. Some few lost souls today think that this concept, consciousness, is a fundamental property of Universe, another concept.  What stupendous folly!  And they are sincere in this belief.

god words

They are undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized and ultimately WORSHIPED.

We live in an age when concepts are worshiped.  This is called figurative idolatry.  

The Integrated Post: Article Analysis: Structural Realism is not Scienc...

The Integrated Post: Article Analysis: Structural Realism is not Scienc...: In this article I will be deconstructing a paper at by Amanda Gefter who is a self-proclaimed, "New Scientist" and what s...

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

On Form (in quotes and related to the alleged Gravitational Waves)

For more see:

Ontology and Fundamental Physics: Object, Matter, Form, First Form, Existence, Concept, Referent

Form is one of if not THE most important name in the history of philosophy and physics. The greatest thinkers thought that Form was the crucial name in all philosophy and physics.

It is irrational, inconceivable, and impossible for an object, body, thing, entity, etc. to LACK FORM. FORM cannot possibly separate from an object since the name refers to WHAT is contained in context to the object itself.

Form is Res Ipsa Loquitur (literally: the thing itself speaks)

The girls at Stanford forgot to learn about Form. They allege they have 'the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time—the "first tremors of the Big Bang."' They are fools. Space-time resolves to a concept, a brain-work. Space-time lacks Form thus it cannot possibly be supposed as an object used to explain in a theory.  And since space-time and the alleged gravitational waves lack form, they could not possibly exist.

The only way one could possibly think that space-time is an object, that could wave, is to take a leap of faith in this undefined and unimaginable space-time. Once space-time is believed in, then any inference from an image or equation could validate that belief. Space-time is the axiom of their entire self-referential religion.  And they are disqualified from even imparting a physical interpretation of that silly image, since they have no possible mediator posited to explain all the static and dynamic properties of light and gravity. They cannot even communicate a reasonable physical interpretation of simple experiments like Young's Slit Experiment, EPR, or how an apple falls to the ground.  

But all Objects have Form. Here is a list of precious quotes that communicate the quintessential importance of Form in the study of physics:

On Form
(synonyms:  shape, figure, configuration, architecture, structure, pattern)

by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance -- Aristotle, (Metaphysics, Ch. 7)

For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form -- Robert Grosseteste (On Light)

The first corporeal form is in my opinion light ---Grosseteste (On Light)

The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. (Riedl, Clare C. (Translator) Notes on Grosseteste)

Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. . . The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . (From Notes on Grosseteste)

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' (From Notes on Grosseteste)

For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9)

where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13)

The term 'body' [object] therefore can signify that which has such a form as allows the determination of three dimensions in it, prescinding from everything else, so that from that form no further perfection may follow. If anything else is added, it will be outside the meaning of body thus understood. (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there are extrinsic and artificial properties that we relate but these cannot define an object. Only form can define an object]

The term body [object] can also be taken to mean a thing having a form such that three dimensions can be counted in it, no matter what the form may be . . . (Aquinas, On Being and Essence)

Now matter and form are so related that form gives being to matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words all objects in the set named matter have the native-inherent property called form and this may qualify them under the category existence].

Matter then cannot exist without some form but there can be a form without matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words he realized that there is a first form that underlies the set of objects, i.e. matter].

As Avicenna says, "The quiddity of a simple substance is the simple entity itself," (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there is a fundamental object that belongs to all objects in the set of matter and this object is what is bound of itself]

A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

A figure is that which is contained by a boundary or boundaries.” (Euclid, Elements)

the knowledge of the universal consents of things …. I … understand as the science which applies the knowledge of hidden forms to the production of wonderful operations; and by uniting (as they say) actives with passives, displays the wonderful works of nature. (Francis Bacon IV, 366–7: De Augmentis III.5)

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (Saint Paul) [Even God has Form].

A complete answer would amount to a history of thought, for in one sense everything possesses form. In some contexts the Greek words Eidos, Schema, and Morphe, and the Latin word Forma, which are often translated as “form” mean no less than “the qualities which make anything what it is.” (Notes from Accent on Form by Whyte)

Around 1250 we find Thomas Aquinas regarding forma as the essential quality or determining principle of every individual thing. (Notes on Accent on Form by Whyte)

But more importantly, shape [form] is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object. (Fatfist, Physics--What is Shape and Why Does it Define an Object?)

Monday, March 3, 2014

Newton on the Medium of Gravity

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly . .. ; (Newton Letters to Bently 1692-3)

That Agent/Medium acting constantly is of course also the unique 3D physical medium of light phenomenon:  our supposed twined threads consistent with Schrodinger's wavefunction and described by c squared in Newton's gravitational equation and Einstein's relativity equation.  All the atoms of the U are interconnected by a twined entity:  one to all others.  The ying thread and the yang thread, the x & the y, the E & the M are intrinsically tied to all atoms of the Universe.  In supposition they converge upon all atoms and fork out at the atomic perimeter to form the magnetic electron skin and the electric proton star.  The protons at the edge of the U are configured a little differently.

Light is torsion of 'medium' and gravity is tension of one and the same 'medium'.

The EM Ropes torque in two directions:  to and from every atom of the Universe.  Atoms pump.  As they pump, they reel in (in expansion) or release (in contraction) links of EM Rope.  

Gravity generates strength by number of tensions multiplied when the distance between any two objects comprised of two or more atoms decreases.  As distance decreases, more and more atoms tug on one another at increasingly steep angles via the EM Ropes that connects all atoms.        

Critical Thinking and Rational Analysis Tools

I've got nothing new today, but I've been harping about critical thinking and rational analysis in my past few articles. Here is a list of conceptual tools that you can begin learning and applying this very moment. Its not difficult, it just takes a little discipline. Everyone needs these tools to help parse through and destroy all the endless b.s. on the internet:

* unambiguously define all key terms in your argument so that they can be used consistently in your dissertation. The term is limited and restricted for crisp, clear and consistent use throughout presentation. Adjectives are used to qualify nouns and adverbs to qualify verbs. This avoids the Fallacy of Equivocation. A does not equal A.

* avoid contradictions; avoid Law of Identity, A is A, is contradictory

* learn to identify and associate synonyms not only in definitions but while parsing discourse.

* continually ask yourself the question "who cares?" to avoid irrelevant issues

* avoid Authority Arguments, i.e. do not appeal to authority

* identify prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.

* avoid the Fallacy of Reification: explain why we cannot reify concepts into objects and why we cannot attempt to ascribe motion/actions to concepts.

* skillfully raise relevant questions so as to creatively solve problems.

* When parsing sentences resolve the ontological context of the referent. Which of the two fundamental categories does a word fall into: 1. object or 2. concept? If the referent has shape it is an object. If not it is a concept.

* avoid confusing nouns of syntax with nouns of reality. (Ordinary speech vs. Scientific language).

* do not perform verbs on concepts; do not use concepts to perform verbs

* kill the observer (an expression to be taken in context. It means make observer independent assumptions or be objective)

* avoid limiting your conceptual realm of reasoning by NOT using tautological systems (such as math and logic) that confine your premises by locking them into axioms and cripple your mind. Tautological systems such as math and logic are artificial, and only solve derivational type problems. Mother Nature could care less about formal logic, mathematics and physical laws coming out of Mankind.

* Provide an “explanation” as to WHY an event occurred the way it did; it’s mechanism, who were its mediators, etc.....and not just a petty “description” of what happened. Logic is especially bankrupt in assisting with this formidable task.

*Objects and explanations must be conceivable.

* Rational explanations should be able to be visualized, illustrated, and can be put as a movie on the big screen as a movie without any missing frames. If it cannot be visualized, then it cannot be understood because it contradicts reality.

* DO NOT convert hypothesis and theory into a facts of the Universal Movie

* Intellectual honesty in a debate requires that you directly quote the statements that you are addressing in your arguments. (do not misrepresent another's position)

* avoid premises and assumptions derived from analogy. Do not infer from analogue assumptions. Rather use analogy to illustrate rational premises and assumptions.

* be critical about your own attempts at criticism. Refutations are rarely final, and more often a prelude to further refinements.

* recognize that assumptions and explanations stand or fall on their own merit.

* marshal sufficient data, observations and evidence for brainstorming before committing to hypothesis, theory and conclusion.

* discard irrational hypotheses and theories

* adapt oneself to reality

* Dispositions: realize human irrationale and error. Have an open-minded outlook. Refuse to think that your desires shape Mother Nature (God and Mother Nature doesn't care about your desires). Be tentative.

* resist the notion that some authority, a great philosopher or physicist has captured the whole truth.

* be willing and able to follow an explanation to the only conclusion to be had---possible, or not possible.

* think for oneself

* be detached emotionally

* avoid ad hoc hypothesis fallacy: do not add hypothesis to a theory in order to save it from being discarded

* avoid Rationalization: do not make excuses or bellyache

* use adjectives (static concepts) to describe nouns of reality.  Adverbs (dynamic concepts) describe verbs (dynamic concepts) performed by nouns of reality.  Physics is a study of nouns, adjectives and verbs.  Math is a study of adverbs.

* apply Occam's Razor: 'shave away' unnecessary assumptions. The Medieval saying is "plurality should not be posited without necessity". Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

* Identify and associate the fact vs. statement of fact dichotomy:

Fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or happened irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an actual event that conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the Cosmic Movie.

Assumption, statement of the facts, scientific fact: A subjective statement from a witness concerning an event or an object. A statement of the facts is either a description of an object or a narrative, an objective listing (usually chronological) of a series of events. A particular interpretation of the evidence or of an observation. (synonyms: an opinion, a lie)

* Physics is the study of causes and objects.  Philosophy is the study of reasons and concepts.

I also have previous blog posts on Cognitive Biases and Informal Fallacies.  

Sunday, March 2, 2014

A History of Quantum Mechanics (in their own words)

In this article we will explore quantum mechanics in their own words and perhaps discover what makes it so special. 

The Search for the Electron and Light

Discrete Particles:

“ if Newtonian mechanics governed the workings of an atom, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus.” (Ref:

[In other words a solar system model of the atom is irrational. Those fossils thought that the atom--which structure is the very heart of the Universe--would behave like the solar system with electron beads orbiting the nucleus. The architecture of an electron bead whizzing around a proton is a ridiculous notion. It fails conceptually but the math was beautiful and made predictions about Balmer's spectral lines. So they just had to keep it and build a myth.]

De Broglie’s Strikes Back with Integral Waves:

De Broglie: “ If we begin to think of electrons as waves, we’ll have to change our whole concept of what an ‘orbit’ is. Instead of having a little particle whizzing around the nucleus in a circular path, we’d have a wave sort of strung out around the whole circle. Now, the only way such a wave could exist is if a whole number of its wavelengths fit exactly around the circle. If the circumference is exactly as long as two wavelengths, say, or three or four or five, that’s great, but two and a half won’t cut it.” (L. de Broglie, Waves and Quanta, Compt. Ren. 177 (1923) 506, 548, 630)

[Won't cut it??? Neither will a configuration of 2D transverse waves.  What is the undulating physical medium? What’s that stuff waving around the proton??? Just what is that physical entity waving around that proton Sun??? A number? A probability??? No one ever bothered to brainstorm or posit a fundamental fine entity that would serve as the integral 'waves' of the electron. In EM Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory De Broglie's integral waves are promoted from a concept to supposed objects. They are supposed to be the magnetic threads of a gazillion EM Ropes converging upon the atom. The magnetic threads arc out at the atomic perimeter and weave together so as to enclose the proton as if a cocoon. In various circumstances such as ionization and magnets, the Magnetic Threads loosen out and spin so as to serve as the medium of magnetism.]

Born Synthesizes Waves and Particles:

“ each particle has a probability amplitude describing its position. This amplitude is then called wave function. This is a complex number-valued function of the position coordinates.” (
[Quantum equations describe a region around the nucleus where the mythical electron particle whizzes in orbit. What they are really describing are the locations of the atom where the Electric Threads and Magnetic re-twist out of their proton and electron shell configurations, respectively, and into the EM Ropes which serve as the medium of light signals. These locations could be described as nodes, i.e. the location where the EM Ropes first have minimum amplitude in relation to the atomic structure.]

“ One can either view the wavefunction as a real object that undergoes the wavefunction collapse in the second stage, or one can imagine that the wavefunction is an auxiliary mathematical tool (not a real physical entity) whose only physical meaning is our ability to calculate the probabilities.” (
[Convenient Duality. Appalling Contradiction. Quantum Mechanics are in the business of covering all their bases so as to win all their arguments and pass their religion onto the next generation. A wavefunction can only refer to an abstract concept used to described motion.  It can never refer to an object let alone an object that exists (that which has form and location).

The wavefunction is an abstract idea that helps describe the motion of the mediator.  It is not THE mediator.  How could a math idea be the mediator???  Wave behavior refers to an idea. Predefined and THINGS having location wave in a manner consistent with the Schrodinger equation.  It was up to the quantum mechanics to suppose what it is that behaves in a manner consistent with the equation but they failed.]

Heisenberg Saves Bohr’s Planetary Model of the Atom via the Uncertainty Principle:

“ At the instant of time when the position is determined, that is, at the instant when the photon is scattered by the electron, the electron undergoes a discontinuous change in momentum. This change is the greater the smaller the wavelength of the light employed, i.e., the more exact the determination of the position. At the instant at which the position of the electron is known, its momentum therefore can be known only up to magnitudes which correspond to that discontinuous change; thus, the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known, and vice versa.”

“ In the sharp formulation of the law of causality – ‘if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future’ – it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.” (Heisenberg, 1927, p. 174-5)

[In other words we cannot understand the atom and its link to light but our equations are beautiful and impeccable thus we must start making up b.s. in order to cement our status as mathematical prophets. We cannot bother to apply critical thinking, rational analysis, brainstorming, etc. thus we will decree uncertainty and render the scientific method as sterile.]

All Heisenberg stated in his elevated prophetic tone is that the when Bohr’s electron ball is at rest (position) it is not in motion (momentum) and when it is in motion (momentum) it is not at rest (position). But in mathematics position is a dynamic concept referencing motion (distance traveled), thus the electron ball moves while it is at rest. So Heisenberg contradicted himself. Heisenberg was only uncertain about what he was talking about.

The electron is in incessant motion. It could not possibly cease from contracting and expanding but for an act of God. But these prophets thought the electron moves and shifts in a sideways direction in relation to the proton like the Earth rotating and changing orbits in relation to the Sun. Schrodinger, who rationally assumed continuity in the atom and all Nature, began to be appalled by their nonsense, but they didn’t stop there.

"Bohr and Heisenberg were separated from Schrodinger by basic philosophical convictions and they were unable to reach common ground from which to consider the atom. Each of them accepted and used the same body of experimental evidence, but they could not agree on the conceptual means to embrace the evidence. Schrodinger looked at the natural world and saw continuity, so he was intellectually offended by energy states and quantum jumps. As he said to Bohr, “If all this damned quantum jumping were here to stay, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory.”'
(J. S. Rigden, Hydrogen the Essential Element, 83-84, (2002)

The Wave-Particle Duality (Complementarity: Reality is Not Reality, the Solvay Conference)

The quantum mechanics rape the noble field of physics by establishing contradiction after contradiction on their self-proclaimed authority:

“ This confusion over particle versus wave properties was eventually resolved with the advent and establishment of quantum mechanics in the first half of the 20th century, which ultimately explained wave-particle duality.”

[in other words the mechanics decreed that they decide when light can behave as a discrete particle or as a wave. They determine reality by inferring from measurements, observations, experiments and equations---without having to stand before a jury]

“ It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.” (Niels Bohr, On Quantum Physics)

[simply because you have decreed it Bohr!!!! Only Math describes Nature (says about Nature) but Physics explains Nature, i.e. makes Her plain and manifest via clear, non-contradictory and well defined language as well as through faithful illustration. Rational Illustration is the language of physics. You, Bohr, disqualified yourself from the noble field of Physics]

“ It is impossible to visualize a wave-particle, so don’t try...”

[The reason is a wave-particle embodies an irrational contradiction. It could not possibly exist or serve as a supposed mediator in physics]

“ With quantum mechanics, an object can be in two places at the same time, as long as you don’t look at it.”

[this in religious terms is called the miracle of bi-location. We are no longer in physics but in religion.]

“Light travels [dynamic] as a wave but departs and arrives [static] as a particle.”

[Quantum's entity that mediates light-phenomenon miraculously transfigures itself en route]

“ In most of the conventional interpretations, such as the version of the Copenhagen interpretation in which the wavefunction is not real…, it is realism that is rejected.” (

“ Niels Bohr emphasized that it is only the results of the experiments that should be predicted, and therefore the additional questions are not scientific but rather philosophical.”

[in other words Niels Bohr drops the ball and justifies himself. This is not science.]

“ there is no physical thing that actually ‘waves’ or oscillates. With particle-waves, what oscillates is the probability that the associated particle will be found in one place or another when an experimenter looks for it.” (A tool to measure what happens in empty space, World Science (Oct. 14, 2005)

[So in other words it is the non-existent idea of probability that oscillates and not a physical entity tied to the atom. Insane. All that happened is that the mechanics gave up on their search for structure and visualization of the atom and light. They should have discarded both the wave and the particle models of light and the atom. Instead they united two irreconcilable and irrational models into one and proceeded to describe behavior alone via math always circumventing the pith of the matter.]

Quantum Interpretation of the Slit Experiment 

Young’s Slit Experiment is a perennially difficult experiment to interpret. Only a rational supposition for the entity that mediates light could possibly solve this problem, but instead the mechanics start to get a little crazy with their miracle working particle-wave. In their own words:

“ The Copenhagen interpretation posits the existence of probability waves which describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given location. Until the particle is detected at any location along this probability wave, it effectively exists at every point. Thus, when the particle could be passing through either of the two slits, it will actually pass through both, and so an interference pattern results. But if the particle is detected at one of the two slits, then it can no longer be passing through both - it must exist at one or the other, and so no interference pattern appears.” (

[in other words the particle is everywhere until we decide where it is via observation. How convenient!!!]

“ It would seem that we must come to terms with this picture of a particle which can be spread out over large regions of space, and which is likely to remain spread out until the next position measurement is carried out… A momentum state may seem hard to accept as a picture of the ‘reality’ of a particle’s existence, but it is perhaps even harder to accept as ‘real’ the two peaked state which occurs when the particle emerges from just having passed through a pair of slits… then we must accept that the particle ‘is’ indeed in two places at once!” (R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford UP (1989) p. 252) 
[a particle can work the miracle of bi-location just like God and Jesus]

“ The idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this wave-particle duality is not in doubt... The notion of a particle being everywhere at once is impossible to imagine.” (P. Davies, About Time, Touchstone (1995))

[This supposed entity is everything they want it to be and more, namely OMNIPRESENT. They are trying to imagine God]

“ the single photon interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment, can be explained by interference of photons in multiple universes.” (

[cool! Just like on the Sci-Fi network!]

Einstein Strikes Back with the EPR Experiment
Einstein got sick of the quantum mechanics making him look like a fool so he struck back with the experiment of the century called EPR. He and a few colleagues essentially validated the continuity of Mother Nature in a mechanism Einstein called spooky action-at-a-distance. All Einstein did was shoot two so-called ‘particles’ from an atom in diametrical directions, thus demonstrating that if one ‘particle’ was confirmed to be spinning clockwise, CW, the other instantly spins counterclockwise CCW. Einstein essentially destroyed quantum mechanics (and his own special relativity) in one brilliant blow, by far the best work of his entire life. However the mechanics come up with hundreds of contradictory and supernatural explanations in order to rescue their beloved quantum religion. 
As a summary, Wiki says it well:

"Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is a "paradox" only because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. How EPR is interpreted regarding locality depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses."

And then Wiki provides links to about 17 mainstream quantum interpretations and another 16 minority quantum interpretations. Fortunately the ‘paradox’ of EPR is easily resolved by positing a rational mediator of light intrinsically tied to all atoms: the EM Rope.

Legacy of Copenhagen

“ the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities…” (Albert Einstein, 1931)
[They never listened to you Einstein. They decreed without a doubt that the wave-particle and wavefunction exist]

The quantum mechanics are in self-imposed never ending circle of accomplishing nothing. They are in their own hell. All they can possibly do is keep on making up new particles, predictions, experiments, measurements and interpretations ad infinitum, and ad nauseum until God decides to mercifully pull the plug on them. Particle Physics is not inherently contradictory because it is built on quantification.  All one can do is keep on quantifying matter.  One never arrives at the supposed fundamental entity.

In Quantum Mechanics Force is a Particle

Everybody in science seems to toot about observation and evidence. So observe and witness that these guys do not understand what the hell they are saying:

“ Force-carrying particles can be grouped into four categories”

“ we call the particles which carry the interactions force carrier particles.” (Particle Data Group, What holds it together? The Particle Adventure (1995))

“ The photon is one of the elementary particles…, but they do carry energy, momentum and angular momentum.” (

“ The fundamental particles of QCD, the quarks and gluons, carry a new form of charge, which is called color” (E. Jericha et al., Fundamental Interactions, Vienna University of Technology (2004).

“ Gauge bosons are bosonic particles which act as carriers of the fundamental forces of Nature.” ( 

[Force is a verb (an action word, a dynamic concept). Usually force is defined as push or pull. So in other words particles are verb carriers or carriers of actions??? If a horse was a particle the horse would carry ‘galloping’. Or I carry my walk. A particle carries push and pull. Interesting.]

[Particles also carry other magical undefined concepts such as charge, momentum, energy and angular momentum. What can I say? They do the impossible and that is why we love them and donate billions so that the mechanics and particle physicists can go out to play.]

A Particle is a Wave is a Particle is a Wave is a Particle
“ it is now established that all objects have both wave and particle nature”

Nicholas: On whose authority???
Quantum Mechanic/Particle Physicist: On the authority of evidence and observation.  The evidence is indisputable.  
Nicholas: So you’ve actually observed a wave-particle presence??
Quantum Mechanic/Particle Physicist: No not directly.
Nicholas: So how do you know that all objects have both a wave and particle nature?
QM/PP: By indirect detection.
Nicholas: Pray what is that?
QM/PP: It is a fancy word for what we call inference.

No particle physicist or quantum mechanic has ever seen any of their particles. They infer or suppose a particle out from sensory based subjective evidence. In other words it is their OPINION that discrete particles exist and mystically communicate through their undefined 'fields' which carry forces. But you need to be initiated into the maths to understand it all. If you bypass the math and launch a criticism at them you are labelled a crank and put on a list.

Light Time Travels

“ The advanced waves travelled backward in time, that is, they arrived at the detector before they left their source.” (V. Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum, Prometheus (1995) p. 145) 

[So one non-existent idea called a wave travels backwards through another non-existent idea called time. And this is confirmed by observation.]

“ if the extra-dimensional speeds have the right relationship, one can construct a situation in which a signal following this path arrives before it is sent.” (J. Cramer, Back in time through other dimensions, The Alternate View (2006))

[Miracle after miracle. Quantum humbles even God.]

The Magical Bohr Model of the H Atom

“ Electron cloud is a term used for introducing the concept of wavefunction in low-level pedagogical introductions to atomic physics, molecular physics, chemistry or quantum chemistry. This idea corresponds to delocated electrons moving or standing like clouds around the atomic or molecular nuclei. This is indeed a better image than the very common image provided by the Bohr model which commonly leads to a visualisation of electrons driving around the nuclei along orbits like the planets around the sun.” (

[In other words the peasants are inducted into the quantum religions via unfaithful images. This is the first stage of brainwashing until they learn the mystical matrix and wavefunction equations so as to be set free.]

“ According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a particular electron is both ‘nowhere at all’ and ‘everywhere all at once’ until an act of measurement causes it to be detected.” (

[Do I even need to point out that this is bloody insane???  Its science!!!]

“ In the true modern model of the atom, the positions of the electrons around the atom’s nucleus are described through probabilities – that is, an electron can theoretically be found at any arbitrary position around the nucleus…This pattern is referred to as its atomic orbital” (

[Or maybe you guys are just full of it and the electron is an all encompassing shell woven by physical entities that you have failed to conceive]

“ The spatial components of these one-electron functions are called atomic orbitals…an atomic orbital is the region in which an electron may be found around a single atom… Fundamentally, an atomic orbital is a one-electron wavefunction… (

[So the electron is an orbital which is a region. Interesting.]

“ The nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a cloud of electrons, and it is primarily the interaction of these clouds that govern the chemical behavior of atoms…(

[So clouds that are orbitals that are regions interact with regions that are clouds that are orbitals. Sounds like ideas interacting with ideas to me.]

“ What happens when a covalent bond is formed between two fluorine atoms is that an orbital from one atom overlaps in space with one from another atom.” (J. Clark, Atomic Orbitals, Chemguide (2006).

[So an orbital that is a region that is a cloud interacts with another cloud that is a region that is an orbital???]

“ electrons fill atomic orbitals in atoms…When two atomic orbitals overlap, they interact in two extreme ways to form two molecular orbitals” (M. Bishop, An Introduction to Chemistry: Molecular Orbital Theory, Benjamin Cummings (2001).

[So electrons that are everywhere and nowhere form orbitals that overlap everywhere and nowhere so as to establish a molecular bond. How enlightening!!!]


Two sacred quantum interpretations of light:

“ In vacuo, E and B perpendicular to each other and to V, and of magnitude proportional to f(RVt) where f( ) is an arbitrary function, R is the position vector, V the velocity, of magnitude c, and t is time. Or any linear combination of the above.” (A British Mechanic)


"The simplest answer is that when a photon is absorbed by an electron, it is completely destroyed. All its energy is imparted to the electron, which instantly jumps to a new energy level. The photon itself ceases to be. In the equations which govern this interaction, one side of the equation (for the initial state) has terms for both the electron and the photon, while the other side (representing the final state) has only one term: for the electron.

The opposite happens when an electron emits a photon. The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existance.

So the question is: where does the photon come from?

Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them.

That's really all we can say about it. There are many interpretations of what this and other phenomena in quantum mechanics mean on a deeper level, and whole libraries worth of books which argue points of view on the matter. But my personal philosophy is that of the famous physicist Richard Feynman, who said: "Shut up and calculate."" (Source: Dave Kornreich, Cornell University:

[btw David Mermin actually said “Shut up and calculate” not Feynman. The Quantum Mechanics should patch together a Quantum Bible to keep track of all their beliefs and wisdom literature]

So there you have it. Throughout the Cosmic Movie gazillions of photons either disappear (annihilate, converted to nothing) or appear ( created, suddenly arrive from nothing). The quantum god is hard at work willing an infinite # of particle-waves (photons) into and out of existence at every atom of the Universe through all frames of the Universal Movie. Every single atom of my body is the location of gazillions of creation and annihilation events happening continuously just to keep me alive. Or maybe I am a hologram. Who knows??? I guess I need to learn Math in order to understand or perhaps invoke one of the following 33 interpretations of quantum mechanics or be beaten into subjection by a trained quantum mechanic. I will choose the second. Here are my choices:

The Sacred Copenhagen Interpretation
Many Worlds
Consistent Histories
Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation
de Broglie-Bohm Theory
Relational Quantum Mechanics
Elementary cycles
Transactional interpretation
Stochastic mechanics
Objective collapse theories
von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse
Many Minds
Quantum Logic
Quantum information theories
Modal interpretations of quantum theory
Time-Symmetric Theories
Branching space-time theories
Calogero conjecture
Semiotic Interpretation
Landé Interpretation
Prowave Interpretation
Time-symmetric interpretations such as the Two-state vector formalism
Pondicherry Interpretation
Quantum mysticism
London (Ticker Tape) Interpretation
Theory of Incomplete Measurements
Montevideo Interpretation
Quantum Bayesianism
Synchronized Chaos Interpretation
Vaxjo Interpretation
Dimensional Theory
Intrinsic Quantum State Interpretation
Cosmological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, proposed by Anthony Aguirre and Max Tegmark

A history of quantum. Nothing other than a sophisticated choose your own adventure story from the 80’s and 90’s with religious undertones.  No one understand what it all means.

But when all is said and done the real kicker in all this is that quantum has no physical mechanism that can be reconciled with gravity. Discrete force-carrying quantum balls with undefined conceptual fields have no way to mediate pull or hold all things together. And they have no way of explaining the EPR experiment.

Radical Traditionalists/Ultra-Conservatives: 101

This post is exclusively aimed at Roman Catholics.

The Roman Catholic Church is said to have more than one billion members worldwide.  With this comes all sorts of groups and diversity.  Diversity and a spectrum of groups can be great manifestation of God's work, but not always.  This article is a quick description of some tendencies in the members of a group within the Church which could be labelled ultra-conservative or radical traditionalist.  There is a whole spectrum of ultra-conservatism, radical traditionalism or plain conservatism but this list should be able to paint a sufficient picture:

* They tend to criticize or outright reject the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Some in this group even think the evil in the Church and the World today was a result of Vatican II: a thought that is beyond insane.  

* They tend to favor the Traditional Latin Mass or in extreme cases outright reject the current form of the Mass in favor to the TLM.

* They tend to favor the 'good ole days' and in extreme cases want to go back to the good ole days.

* They tend to favor a stodgy and decadent form of Thomism/Aristotelianism.  I would even suppose that some rad trads idolize Aquinas, maybe even Augustine, much to the ruin of their brains. (Note:  there is literature of thousands upon thousands of good Catholic Christian thinkers)

* They have Pharisaical tendencies.  All the criticism Jesus launched at the Pharisees can be applied to this group.

* They tend to act Triumphalist or take the attitude that before the 60's the Church was right about everything She did.

* They tend to overemphasize petty religious laws, rules, precepts, (e.g. Canon laws) in contrast to the immaculate morals in the Way of Christ Jesus.  

* They tend to overemphasize eschatology

* Their personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture are appalling, or cut and paste

* Pending context, they tend to act domineering or the extreme opposite: overly submissive

* They tend to behave superficially or petty

* They lack critical thinking and rational analysis skills

* They have the habit of appealing to authority especially Magisterial documents without understanding how the Magisterium works or how Magisterial Teachings relate to Divine Revelation. Online they tend to blindly quote Magisterial documents without any sort contextual analysis or thought-process.

* They tend to overemphasize specific Marian Apparitions such as Fatima.

* Some in this group are European Monarchists.

* It was just brought to my attention that some in this group promote a new wave of Geocentrism based in the U.S.

* Some of the more extreme members of this category doubt or outright reject the Messianic authority of the elected Popes since Vatican II.  

* They tend to act prudish (which is not the tried and true virtue of chastity/modesty)

* They tend not to be uptight at Mass or in prayer

* They tend to have an unrealistic view of the Roman Catholic Church (not to mention the world)

* They are idealogues

I have no idea what kind of readership this blog gets.  Recently I have focused more on physics.  I imagine that not many Catholics come here.  But the reason I made this list is because I have witnessed the young and the naive fall prey to the wolves of this group.  I thoroughly understand how much direct and indirect harm the members of this group can inflict on the innocent sheep of Christ Jesus.  It is a TERRIBLE thing to witness.  

Some of my blogs are polemical, but I advise in all sincerity to not associate with these people.  Turn away from them and never look back.  Do NOT follow their teachings. There are other ways to learn and live the Catholic Christian Faith than through these people.

And don't follow me or my teachings.  Follow Christ Jesus and use your brain.  Be brave and be your own unique child of God.  Follow and learn from Pope Francis who holds the keys.  Follow the Scriptures; learn the Magisterial teachings; learn critical thinking and rational analysis skills.  Also acknowledge and follow Pope Francis, the Bishop of Rome and his valid successors!  

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Contra the New Wave of Geocentrism

It has come to my attention that two radical traditionalist/ultra-conservative Catholics (Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis) have teamed up to make a documentary about the Copernican Principle. I'm not sure exactly what they are up too with this. To be just, I do not want to criticize a movie without having seen it, but I do want to share some thoughts that came to me while parsing their wonderful web pages which do most certainly promote a new wave of


I guess we never did leave the good ole Middle Ages.  LOL! 

On Geocentrism

The Universe Has No Center or Preferences

Center is a static concept that in terms of physics (not geometry) describes a location. A location is a concept defined as the set of static distances from an object to all other objects. In context to physics when we are talking a center we are describing an object in relation to other relevant objects of existence (whether in context the objects be supposed as stars or atoms or EM Ropes).

The Universe has no central location because it has no form.  The Universe refers to a conceptual binary system relating space (that which lacks shape) and matter (the set of objects that have shape). Strictly speaking the Universe has no center.  The Universe is not a noun of reality. It is just an abstract concept.  Ideas have no center nor do ideas have preferred directions.  Preference is synonymous with opinion.  One cannot trace a preference, let alone a preferred direction in an idea. And one cannot trace a preference in a trillion dollar map of supposed light signals.

The set of objects called matter also has no center because this to resolves to an abstract concept. One could imagine that some object is at a central location in the conceptual nest named matter, but this is irrational, inconceivable and impossible in this context since the set of all objects that exist are in incessant motion, and it is impossible to measure the set of static distances from say the Earth to all other stars and galaxies. We also observe that the stars and galaxies are distributed asymmetrically. In context to the atoms we could perhaps describe the proton as a physical center of the atom, but in context to all the stars and galaxies there is strictly speaking no center due to unending motion (two or more locations of an object).

Motion is a concept, conceived by humans and requires a memory. Thus humans may get confused about motion, but Nature never does since she only recognizes form and location.  The location of atoms always changes.  There is no central object.  And to all you theists/theologians out there I ask:

Why would God care about a petty human concept called 'center'???

Geocentrism in relation to Divine Revelation and the Roman Catholic Church

Geocentrism is a Grecian system/model of astronomy. For my purposes astronomy is a subset of physics. Physics is the study of natural existence. Physics studies natural causes and natural objects.

The Geocentric system has nothing to do with the Bible or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (or even the Jewish religion) since this thought originated in ancient Greece. The Old Testament authors of the Bible were not Greeks. Maybe there was one Hellenistic New Testament author but he did not teach Geocentrism. Jesus DID NOT teach Geocentrism. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church can only draw doctrines out of the the fonts of Divine Revelation which are the Deeds wrought by God or the Words written by God with the help of the holy writers. It is an inconceivable and irrational notion that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church ever invoked their spiritual authority to teach Geocentrism because like I said above this was a Grecian system of astronomy.  

Even if a Pope or Bishop thought he was invoking his spiritual authority to teach Geocentrism this act is null and void by virtue of the fact that Geocentrism is a Greek based thought.  It is impossible for a Roman Catholic Pope or Bishop to teach Geocentrism with the authority of Christ Jesus. A Grecian system of cosmology is not the domain of the teaching authority exercised by successors of Peter and the Apostles. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of how the Magisterium works, not to mention of Divine Revelation. It is the height of folly and arrogance to invoke the Magisterium (spiritual authority) to promote Geocentrism.

Divine Revelation DOES NOT teach Geocentrism. The Jews or Christians who may have held to this teaching did not draw it from Divine Revelation . . . they drew it from the Greeks. And if they read Geocentric doctrines into the Sacred Script and taught these to others . . . this was their Personal Error of interpretation (whether a Pope or a pauper) which they will surely have to answer before God who is certainly merciful, but who nevertheless misses nothing and will judge every single error without prejudice.

Divine Revelation teaches that the Earth is elect, meaning God chose it out of all others as an object of His favor. This teaching has nothing to do with physics, astronomy, cosmology, CMB and most of all Geocentrism. God chose the Earth, not Mars, or some exoplanet or any other star or this monster called Universe. God chose a predefined object which He had created in what was to the sacred authors an ambiguous prehistory.  AND suddenly, God emitted the Spirit to to the Earth thus establishing a supernatural connection. Via the Spirit, God miraculously worked the Earth. This is clearly described in the Genesis 1 narrative. The setting for the story is the Earth: Gensesis 1:2 begins, "And the Earth existed as . . . " and so on and so forth. God stimulated the face of the Earth in the miraculous light-event which has no relation to CMB.

(As a side note: I am appalled by any sort of interpretation which teaches the august light-event has any sort of relation to the Big-Bang, expanding space, energy, matter, CMBR, etc.  The sacred author clearly describes the setting of his story as the Earth.  Since when do we just trample on God and the sacred author's description without justifying our interpretations?  The setting of Genesis 1 is the Earth.  And this in no way implies that the Earth is the central location of the Universe or that all celestial bodies revolve around the Earth or that there is a 'preferred' direction of light signals or that the Earth is 6000 years old.  And anyway: it is irrational, inconceivable and impossible that the sacred author could have known about or understood Big-Bang, CMBR, or the Grecian notions of matter.  And all the better for him!!!)

Another quick example communicating Earth's Divine election, that comes to my mind is the Psalm where it say "You sent forth your Spirit, and they were created, and you renewed the face of the EARTH." God did not send forth the Spirit and renew the face of Neptune, Betelgeuse or this artificial and shapeless concept called UNIVERSE.  Earth is elect.  These Sacred Scripts have 
NOTHING to do with the Earth supposed as a static center around which all celestial objects revolve or with the CMBR. 

It seems to me that many throughout history and even to this day have mistaken the system/model of Geocentrism for the Divine based teaching that Earth is an elect object of God's grace and special work. These are two entirely different fundamental notions and they CANNOT be reconciled. And it is not my fault that some of the early Christians made this sort of blunder by adopting ancient Grecian notions. I follow the Holy Trinity, not some mistaken theologians or Church Fathers and certainly not some Rad Trad upstarts. Plus the Holy Trinity helped form my brain via the womb of my mother. One is called to assume faith and use one's brain in regards to these matters. Blessed John Paul II wrote an encyclical teaching the value of fides et ratio. Geocentricism is irrational, inconceivable and impossible physical doctrine. All one can do is convert this doctrine into a basis for a new sect of religion.

The Galileo Affair

Whenever the Galileo Affair comes up do you know what I say???

I say it was baby men fighting baby men. Galileo came up with a fundamental discovery which with time was and still is assumed as rational, conceivable and possible. The Pope had no spiritual authority in regards to Galileo's discovery. Originally the Pope liked Galileo's ideas, but then the relationship between the two went sour. Galileo and the Pope got engaged in a personal fight with political ramifications. The Pope was more powerful, which is a shame because our first Pope originally was a fisherman who did not care about worldly power. The Pope should have let it go, but he won the personal and political battle by might. Galileo too, like Newton (and a lot of brilliant scientists), was a bit of an asshole. They were baby men.

In addition I also say that all those who have made a career or dollar whining about the Galileo Affair; and all those who attack the entire Roman Catholic Church with all her members or her refined doctrines though the ages because of the Galileo Affair are also baby men.  The Galileo Affair had nothing to do with Divine Revelation or authoritative Roman Catholic teaching. 

The irony in all this is that by the time Blessed Pope John Paul II apologized for the Galileo Affair . . . as a gesture of good will . . . the physicists had IMHO already gone insane with their ideas. And so it is. Strange world. But I say that the adherents of a new Geocentric model or philosophy or whatever it is, are on a par, even worse than the quantum mechanics, particle physicists and relativists.

Is Geocentrism Rational?

Is Geocentrism rational??? Do I even need to answer this question??? It contradicts almost all discoveries, rational assumptions, theories, conclusions not to mention observations, and experiments done over the past centuries. It contradicts Newton's amply tested gravitational equation which we have a very thorough and rational physical interpretation of.

If one were to suppose that all astronomical objects revolve around a static Earth then one would have to posit a rational physical mediator that consummates this phenomenon. In other words, explain to me just how all the celestial bodies revolve around the Earth in terms of physics. What is the physical mechanism??? What is your physical interpretation??? If you want to hold to this assumption then you have to be brave and explain to me just how it all works supposing physical mediators. And please use illustrations. And please fit into this assumption a rational explanation of light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, ionization, chemical bonding and atomic motion. Hint: you will not succeed.  The assumption is irrational, inconceivable and impossible.  If your hypothesized mediator is God then you are establishing your own Geocentric religion. 

And evidence is irrelevant to this issue. Evidence invokes a petty sensory system.  We can subjectively validate all we want by making up whatever b.s. comes to our mind using a billion dollar map and creating artificial axiomatic systems of validation (tautologies). But physics is about making manifest the underlying mechanisms of motion using a rational scientific method. How is it that the Earth does not rotate? And how is it that all the gazillions of celestial objects including the Sun revolve around the Earth?

The great irony I see in these modern day Geocentric adherents is that they are using the very billion dollar maps of the establishment, whom they reject, to persuade the public into a sort of irrational theology or philosophy or possibly a religious sect.   Via the data of this so called Axis of Evil in the Planck/WMAP, God, by some made up miracle, is making all the celestial objects revolve around a stationary Earth??? These guys have got to be kidding. The atoms comprising the Earth alone cannot even keep still.

What is equally amusing is that DeLano and Sungenis recruited a few high priests of mainstream physics, namely, Krauss, Tegmark, and Kaku to help them with their little project with all its Geocentric implications. LOL!!! Too funny.  Even more amusing is DeLano and Sungenis on the Vortex, insinuating that the Second Vatican Council had some relation to the Copernican Principle and the Galileo Affair.  God forgive me, but what a bunch of sneaky loons. 

Is There A Privileged Astronomical Object of the Universe?

In context to physics there is no privileged object of the Universe. Physics is a study of natural causes and natural objects. Atoms do not recognize atoms or follow laws or have opinions or have preferences. The natural phenomenon and mechanisms of light, gravity, electricity, and magnetism have no preference when collectively at work via atoms and the supposed physical mediators connecting all atoms of the Universe.  Light signals do not have preferred directions.  Consistent with the stout c squared concept, a pillar of physics, atoms simply pump, torquing signals to all atoms (and vice versa) via the taut-rectilinear EM ropes interconnecting them.  This is not a matter of preference or opinion. Mother Nature has no preferences.  She could not care less about preferences, opinions or laws.

The direction of light phenomenon, regardless of location, is diametrical (bi-directional). Light travels in two directions:  to and from every atom of the Universe.  In other words consistent with Newton's and Einstein's amply tested c squared concept all atoms continuously twist light signals to all atoms along the supposed taut and rectilinear physical EM mediators intrinsically tied to all the atoms.  Light signals travel bidirectionally, at the speed of light via the DNA-like physical entities to and from all atoms.  Again, Mother Nature has no preferences in her work of light.  The only entity of this Universe who has preferences and preferred directions is the human ape who looks at billion dollar maps and daydreams myths about how special he is.  

If there is any sort of peculiarity in the trillion dollar Planck/WMAP bullshit; it is because the satellites were located so close to the Earth.  All the atoms of the Earth are connected to all the atoms of the Universe via EM Ropes.  At a distance close to the Earth gazillions of EM Ropes originating in all the atoms of the Earth would extend and crisscross in a mesh, right through the satellite in their connection to all the atoms of the stars and galaxies.  The region near a star/planet where EM Ropes extend to converge on there way to all the stars and galaxies is called an inverse square regime or 'Bird's Beak' region.

Even if the satellite was far enough away from the Earth it would still fall within the Sun's Bird Beak Region thus have gazillions of EM Ropes passing right through all ready to be detected by a satellite.  These EM Ropes connect all the Sun's atoms to all atoms of the U.  There would also be countless intersections of EM Ropes extending to and from countless stars and galaxies.  For crude pictures communicating the something of the idea:

The Cosmic Microwave Background is a myth.  The microwave signals did not originate in some miraculous event that happened billions of years ago.  These signals originate in the atoms of the stars and galaxies, as well as the Earth and Sun.  Again light only travels in two directions, to and from all atoms of the Universe (diametrical, bidirectional paths).  'Cosmic' is an assumed modifier in relation to 'Microwave Background Radiation'.

And btw, anyone who does not understand what light is. . . those who fail to assume a rational physical medium that simulates all the static and dynamic properties of light IS NOT qualified to give a physical interpretation of the CMB map.  So if anyone stands up and preaches to you about the CMBR just ask them what their physical mediator for light is and just how the light signals conveyed along this mediator from their mythical 'beginning'.  Hint: If the supposed CMB light was conveyed by the first atomic elements then that light would have already been upon us and stimulated us long ago for in their myth we are all made from the hydrogen and helium formed in this Big-Bang.  Light phenomenon continuously begins and ends at the electron shells of all atoms.      

Assuming Faith

In Faith or in terms of theology there is a privileged astronomical object of the Universe. We call it Earth. God freely chose to establish a special relationship with the Earth in which He imparted and to this day imparts supernatural favors. And God of course figuratively wed Himself to the human family who live on Earth's surface. This is why we and the Earth are special.  There is no other possible reason.

One could assume faith and apply critical thinking and rational analysis to this teaching so as to formulate a theological argument but this has nothing to do with physics, astronomy, cosmology, Geocentrism and least of all trillion dollar techno-toy maps that baby men drool over.

Closing Remarks

The natural sciences such as physics are not a study of God and His miraculous-supernatural works assumed in Faith nor is it a domain of irrational nonsense. And like I said above nowhere does Divine Revelation teach Geocentrism.  I hate to say this because I sound like one of my teachers, but Roman Catholics live by Fides et Ratio. Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical about Faith and Reason.

In physics we study Mother Nature using a rational scientific method that applies a stern regime of critical thinking and rational analysis. In faith, I assume God made Nature well and reasonable. God doesn't perform some stupendous miracle by which all the celestial objects revolve around the Earth.  And God does not toy with microwave signals leaving some mysterious trace of His works. Critical thinking and rational analysis, not to mention Divine Revelation: kill these vain assumptions.    

But the teaching that God elected the Earth by conveying the Spirit to her, and renewing her face in a miracle is out of bounds in context to physics, astronomy, cosmology and is certainly not the teaching of Geocentrism, nor can it be inferred from a map of microwave signals.  Like I said above, many have mistaken a Ptolemaic notion or now this ultra-modern satellite map for a doctrine of election. 

The problem I perceive is that some people are not content to keep in bounds. They want to make a religion out of physics. And I'm not just talking about Christians or Jews or New Wave Geo-centrists. Even the physical interpretations given by mainstream-established physicists go way beyond the beliefs of a simple Jew, Christian or Muslim. Case in point, I just recently read this from Cornell University's website in answer to a question about photons:

It certainly isn't a stupid question, and really cuts to the heart of the question of interpreting quantum mechanics.
The simplest answer is that when a photon is absorbed by an electron, it is completely destroyed. All its energy is imparted to the electron, which instantly jumps to a new energy level. The photon itself ceases to be. In the equations which govern this interaction, one side of the equation (for the initial state) has terms for both the electron and the photon, while the other side (representing the final state) has only one term: for the electron.
The opposite happens when an electron emits a photon. The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existence.
So the question is: where does the photon come from?
Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them. (Reference:

Through all frames of the Cosmic Movie gazillions of photons either disappear (annihilate, convert to nothing) or appear (created, suddenly arrive from nothing). The quantum god called ENERGY is hard at work willing an infinite # of particle-waves (photons) into and out of existence at every atom of the Universe through all frames of the Universal Movie. Every single atom of my body is the location of gazillions of creation and annihilation events happening continuously just to keep me alive. Or maybe I am a hologram. This is what the quantum mechanics teach me about reality. And this sort of irrational, inconceivable and impossible voodoo magic is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of modern physics. These guys make the miracles of God, Heaven, Jesus, and Angels look like a walk in the park. It all sounds like some form of secret religion to me. Maybe I need to learn all the math and then choose my own adventure through the thirty three or so interpretations of quantum mechanics. Who knows???

But at the end of the day which is more nonsensical? The creation and annihilation of gazillions of photons or a Geocentric explanation of the Universe??? I say neither. They are both equally absurd.