Wednesday, December 3, 2008

THE BURDEN OF BEING OMNISCIENT - DISTRACTIONS IN POLITICS - THE MAINSTAY OF THOSE INNATELY GIVEN TO CORRUPTION

UPDATE: Merov posted a great response - a must read.

It has been claimed that Robert Sanchez has claimed to have seen a UFO. Well I too have seen a UFO -an unidentified flying object. It was 1974 and we were camping at Lake Meade. It was bright, shaped like a cigar, and shot across the sky. The entire camp ground was abuzz. Two days later there was an article in the paper wherein the Air Force explained it as some type weather heat event. So there you have it, on the night hundreds of people saw it, it was unidentified. Two days later, an Air Force meteorologist explained it away.

You see I am not so arrogant as to claim to be omniscient. It looked like nothing else I had ever seen in my life - hence unidentified. This is the nature of the distractions of politics. If I was not there how could I possibly refute what Sanchez saw? I cannot. Science is limited by technology. Scientist have no knowledge of the exact size of the universe. It is pure speculation. Given this speculation, can anyone with a straight face say they "KNOW" there is no life out there. No, only an arrogant moron looking to make someone look stupid because they do not like them would make such a statement. Conversely, I cannot say with certainty there is life out there. I simply remain open to possibilities until the evidence speaks otherwise. I must, since I am not omniscient.

There are potentially billions of planets in the universe. How can anyone say for sure there is no life outside of Earth. And if there is life, how can they say with confidence Earth is the most advance life form in the universe. I cannot imagine the burden of being omniscient.

While I personally believe people who oppose Sanchez politically have a lot of good reasons, the intellectually weak will use his UFO statement as a distraction from the issues which are important, such as PUB impact fees, reckless spending at City Hall, and on and on. It is easier to call someone who does not worship you annoying than to take them to task on the substance of what they have to say. So rather than claim you are omniscient and know there cannot be life outside of Earth, how about telling the readers how you know there is no life outside of Earth, and why raising Impact Fees is bad.

I have spoken quite frequently to the issue of distractions. It is the tool of those given to corruption. It is all they have. They lack the requisite intellect or character to speak to the issues. They look for the flaw in their opponent and stress the flaw, rather than address the issues. In politics it has become the mainstay of these scoundrels to pay for full page ads in the Herald to appear at the 11th hour so that no meaningful response can be made. The Herald ill-serves its readers when it plays along. At a minimum they should have a policy of providing the other candidate notice of the ad and an opportunity to respond. But then again the Herald is not about serving the community, it is about serving its profits. In the end it serves neither.

People, until we are willing to turn away from the distractions, these scoundrels will continue to play the game. We in turn will continue to turn away good candidates for public office. No one is without mistakes in their lives. I could not imagine why any good family person, man or woman would put their family through the process when then know the campaign will be dominated with distractions about their lives and not the issues.

The people who promote the lies, the made up news stories, whether as bloggers, posters on blogs or journalists, are responsible for every bit of corruption in our system. Until we hold them accountable nothing will change.

6 comments:

The Merovingian said...

It is almost a statistical certainty that there is other life in the universe. The only thing that makes the Earth unique is that we are here to take notice of it. Whether there is sufficiently technologically advanced intelligent life, and if said life is within the timescale/distance from us to make meaningful contact is, of course, open to debate. The odds of such potential life being within some framework of parity with our own intelligence is appallingly small, not to mention the high likelihood of having no common frame of reference in order to engage in meaningful exchange. As an example, look at our marine mammals: Highly intelligent, no common frame of reference with modern man, hence no meaningful communication.

Have we been visited? I highly doubt it.

The size of the universe is unquantifiable. If one finds truth in Super String, or Super Symmetry theory then the extra dimensions involved that have shrunken to almost insignificance really gum up the works over intergalactic distances, making attempts at three dimensional measurements bogus.

On the "apparent size" issue I have looked at anomalies that would otherwise break current understandings of the age and beginnings of the universe. I am referring to astronomical oddities called "Faint Blue Objects". These show up on long exposure photographic plates and are thought to be galaxies at incredible distances from us. The problems with these objects are that they are too far away to fit current theories as to the age and expansion of the universe following the big bang. In addition, the further an object is from us, the more the visual spectrum should be shifted to the red, in keeping with the "red shift" predicted in the expanding universe.

So, are all the elegant theories as to the nature of the universe wrong? Are we surrounded with philosophy majors playing at scientist? In my mind, not really.

Einstein and others accept the curvature of space as a given. I am not personally sure which of the current theories adequately explain why, but at present I will accept that space itself is curved. If this is indeed the case, then looking "straight" out for immense distances should, in fact, be looking along the edge of a curve. Which direction it is curved, I do not know if I can comprehend, or if it can even be expressed within our three dimensions, but for the purposes of fitting observed anomalies within the framework of current theory, this is not important for now.

The repeatable, observable phenomena of the "Faint Blue Objects" would appear to me to be looking at our own backsides, billions of years in the past. The objects are blue shifted in spectrum because they are expanding toward us (or away from us, in the opposite direction, depending on how you prefer to look at it) This view doesn't break any current theories, adequately explains the apparently excessive distances that these objects exist at, the fact that they are uniformly shifted in the blue direction of the spectrum, and their density, as we are looking so far into the past.

This model implies that the universal "plane" on which we exist is much like the inside wall of an expanding balloon, if I may be allowed to compress a few dimensions into two for the purposes of explanation. We are only allowed to look along the inside wall of this balloon in any direction, as that is the plane on which we exist. As the balloon expands, every point in every direction that we observe appears to be moving away from us. So far, so good, red shift explained. If we look along one "straight line" far enough, we will see ourselves, but far distant in the past, due to the limitations on the speed of light. What we would observe is the leading edge of the expansion moving away from us in the past at the speed of the expansion of the universe, apparently heading toward us. "Faint Blue Objects" explained, no broken theories.

Where is the center of the universe? If you can accept my flattened model of three dimensional space into the two dimensions of the inside surface of an expanding balloon, then it should be obvious that the center of the universe lies in a direction that we cannot look, in a space that we have no way of perceiving. I find this personally disturbing, but I have to accept it, if I wish to remain intellectually honest with myself.

Now having thought about this for a couple of minutes, don't the petty, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, distracting, base,coarse,and just plain silly behaviors of the people that we choose as leaders fade to the insignificance they so richly deserve? Can you name a ONE that is remotely capable of following the explanation of the expanding universe that I have presented here, let alone UNDERSTANDING it?

The next time you hear the collection of baboons spouting off at the mouth and squandering whatever resources they can taint with their touch, don't become angry, simply oppose. They are stupid, one and all. I will make an exception if any one of them can intelligently discuss the matters I put forth here today, the odds of which, unfortunately are on par with having meaningful communication with an extraterrestrial intelligence.

"Of course I know. It is my business to know." -The Merovingian

Anonymous said...

What Sanchez said was that he had it on good authority that alien space craft were ducking in and out of the Gulf of Mexico. George Bush had it on good authority that Iraq was producing all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. I have it on good authority that crop circles are the only way a superior intellectual race capable of intergalactic travel could find to communicate with earth.
The point is that Sanchez is spewing stuff about some kind of space port under the Gulf with alien space craft buzzing in and out. I think it speaks to his judgement that he announces stuff like this with no substantiation. Yes, sir, this is what I want in a mayor. And it scares me much more that I think he probably believes it, too. I think it matters if the mayor believes wild eyed gossip and I think it says something about the person. Now, if he would have said something about it being a big universe and that he thinks there is life out there somewhere and that he thinks that life has visited earth and if he has offered an argument as to why he thinks that, I would have a whole different take on the thing. On my part, I think it absurd to believe that life exists only on earth. Has it ever visited earth? Unlike Sanchez, I haven't a clue. Sure, I've seen strange lights in the sky and odd phenomena but, for heaven's sake, when you are in South Texas and hear hoof beats you should think horses not zebras. And aren't you the guy that is always preaching that things should be read for content? Because you didn't see the same issues in Sanchez's statements as did I you have decided I am an intellectual moron and intellectually weak. Those things may or may not be true but I say you are reaching conclusions on pretty thin evidence. By the way, I enjoy the way you guys promote discussion by calling people names. I think that says more about you then it does about me. If I was a name caller, I might even reflect on what it says about your intellect or muse about hypocrisy. Well, actually, I can be a name caller so I will say that I think your post is full of unwarranted righteous hypocrisy and that it has aspects of some exaggerated attempt to look even handed and fair.
By the way, if you were omniscient I doubt it would be a burden. In fact, I think I could argue that it would be totally liberating. On the other hand, since you seem to think that knowing if there is intelligent life on in the universe would make someone omniscient you and I and Mr. Webster have different definitions of the word. I don't think it would make them all knowing, I just think it would just make them someone who knew about intellectual life in the universe.
Mescalero AKA Intellectual Moron

BobbyWC said...

Mescalero,

Thanks for the comment, but you missed my point. Nothing you said would lead me to believe you are an intellectual moron. I can reasonably understand why you would consider Sanchez's judgment questionable if in fact he said what you claim he said.

My limited point was, on the issue of life outside Earth, unless you are omniscient you cannot possibly know.

I have never read any of Sanchez's comments on the issue. I was speaking to the limited issue of life outside of Earth.

In principle I agree that if you want to be taken seriously you do not make statements that you believe there is some alien force in the Gulf of Mexico. Again I have never read any such comment by Sanchez. I am not saying he did not make the statements.

My concern is two fold. One, so much speech is surpressed because people fear the reaction they will receive if they speak what they believe to be the truth. Two, while I personally find it hard to believe we have been visited by aliens, how does that equate to me knowing for sure we have not been visited by aliens? I just personally believe any life outside of Earth which could travel to Earth would be so superior to us that they would make themselves known. The fact they have not leads me to believe we have not been visited. But conversely, I can understand the argument that maybe they fear interferring in our life could be disasterous so they remain hidden. Again I am not omniscient, so how can I know for sure either way?

Now back to Sanchez, do you not believe speaking to his comments about the libraries to be more of importance to what would happen if he became mayor, than his belief in aliens? My point is, with so many real issues which relate to our community, why focus on aliens?

Look, McHale eggs him on so his has a court jester. Everyone but Sanchez knows this. Sanchez will not win the job as mayor. If he runs he will guarantee Ernie Hernandez wins. This is McHale's real objective.

Again, thanks for your comments. I think they added to the discussion in an important way.

Bobby WC

BobbyWC said...

Mescalero,

Another point, because I seemed to have missed the jist of your point. If Sanchez does not substantiate his comments on a space port of sorts(again I have never read this, but I have no reason to doubt you -)then a reasonable mind, including mine, would question his judgment in making statements based on rumors.

This point, as you make it, is an important point. It goes to his judgment in terms of how he will make policy on facts or rumors.

But Mescalero, understand what you have done. You did not just make fun of him, you tied your argument to his judgment in policy making.

Not that my opinion matters, but I wish more posters would reason out their position with such intellect.

Again thanks,

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

Bobby,
You need to rise above the jesters and let this die. No one else will. McHale is just having a ball. This is his MO, and his good at it.

G. Whiz

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm sure glad that Mero's out of whatever cage he's been in. He reasons well.

And I appreciate Mescalero's point about what we used to call flaming--the tendency to add personal insult to a criticism of what someone has said or done. That's one of the basic flaws of bloggerdom. It was a problem on the early boards in the 1980's, too, even before there was an internet. In those days, though, the board moderator (or master, many called themselves) would pull flaming posts. Except his own, of course.

Interestingly human behavior, eh?