web metrics



Types of Thought


          While still at university, I discovered by reading and observation that people think different ways, if they think much at all.  I discovered that people fall into two major categories when it comes to thinking: those who feel, and those who think.  Later in life, I added a third category; those who are word-oriented.  Those who feel constitute roughly 80%.  I’ve asked questions like “Do you think about things while you’re doing the dishes or sitting still?” and they respond with a “No” and a questioning look on their faces as if they have just been introduced to a radically new concept.  These characteristically say “I feel that.…” as if they are blind and have to feel their way around.

          Among those who think, (including among the 80% when they think), there are those who visualize and those who do not.  Visualizers are characterized by the phrase “I see...,” and the others by “I understand....”  (Please, do not conclude that any particular individual is only capable of one of these methods; each of us is capable of all three.  We tend to favor one over the others.)  Visualizers tend to think formally; they are quite at home with formulae, formal presentations, formal logic, formal religions and formal services, formal you-name-it. 

          That leaves the third category, which is informal.  I use the word in an obsolete sense, meaning the property of giving material form to, to arrange.  The meaning is obsolete because human disciplines have now been formal for 200 years or more.  Generally speaking, formal deals with essential constitution or structure, but it is not especially concerned with the content of the form.  I am informal.  That is why I am easily veered off track to introduce novel ideas and sidetracks.  It frustrates the practitioners of the other two methods.  But I try to inform, and I know there is energy in discovery so I try to inform people so that there is a way they can make the discovery themselves, and so receive that energy, too.  At times that process obfuscates, asking them to make mental leaps they feel they cannot make.

          As concerned with content, informal analysis generally works from the inside out.  Thus, I recognized the firmament because I started with nothing, a null point, discovered it had no existence, and so God must exist.  Then I worked out that the granularity of God was infinitesimal.  As the granularity of the creation is not infinitesimal, I then found it in the Planck particles.  These, then, became surface manifestations of a deeper medium. 

          Informal thought is word-oriented.  It tries to find the right word to express the content of the form around it, which means that at times one is at a loss for words, or one creates word-combinations to describe the content (as I just did with the word, geocentricity).  It happens in thick darkness. 

          You may ask, why would I trust informal methods?  At university I had problems learning several concepts, among them electro-magnetic theory.  As time went by, I learned that the concepts that I could not learn were concepts that turned out to be wrong.  They worked formally, but I could not formally comprehend them.  After a couple of instances I accepted that it was not a flaw in my thinking that kept me from understanding but a flaw in the concept.  One professional astronomer told me that he envied my ability to “visualize” (his word) the way I do, but that he would rather be able to formulate a theory.  I agree with that.  After all, if I didn’t understand the wrong concept, why was I not instantly able to correct it? 

          So, as you can see, there is no one “right” way to think.  All methods (and there may be more, I just haven’t thought about it) complement each other.  Now, would anyone like to work out an electromagnetic theory in terms of density gradients in the firmament?  (Longitudinal waves, anyone?) 


The Axis of Evil: Evil to Whom?


          Some seven years ago astronomers discovered that galaxies aligned in filaments that pointed to the earth.  The phenomenon was dubbed, “The Fingers of God.”  As our picture of the surrounding cosmos developed, extragalactic astronomers discovered a phenomenon that greatly disturbed them.  In their desire to move the earth away from a special place in the cosmos, they dubbed the disturbing observation as “The Axis of Evil.”  The universe, according to atheistic and agnostic science is supposed to be isotropic; everywhere the same, without landmarks that could identify where you are in the universe.  Any sort of order hints of an organizing “force,” or even a Creator.  Such a structure is the axis of evil.

          Other evidences for an organizing force or Creator are:


1.        The alignment of hot and cold spots in the cosmic microwave background, the 3K black body radiation.

2.        The increase in the degree of polarization (where light waves wave up and down in the same plane) of light from galaxies depends on how near they are to the axis of evil. 

3.        The alignment of the axes of rotation of many spiral galaxies, that is, that their axes of rotation all point in the same direction. 

4.        Clusters of galaxies and even superclusters rotate as if they’d been created intact instead of developing in isolated islands of space as required by the Big Bang and even current inflationary models.  The main problem is that the universe is not “old” enough for the evolutionary model to account for the rotation.  Again, an organizing force that transcends the chaos of the big bang creation models.


          For the past 200 years the episteme (foundational purpose) of science is the de-Godification of the universe.  I use the upper case because all kinds of gods and their writings are acceptable to science except the Judeao-Christian God and his Bible.  So it goes without saying that the Judeao-Christian God is the one that makes coherent and perfect sense whereas all the others are gods of straw.  It follows that any organized evidence for a coherent God must be denied by modern science.  Therefore the organized evidence presented above, which cannot (yet) be denied, is deemed evil. 


Nearby Galaxies Look the Same As Distant Ones[1]


          Astronomers have found that a local class of galaxies are identical to ones far away.  The class of galaxies are called Lyman break galaxies based on the appearance of the ultraviolet spectrum near the Lyman lines of hydrogen.  The galaxies are quite active, said to be producing stars at “a prodigious rate.”  That means that the galaxies are much bluer than normal, which is interpreted as younger than normal in the evolutionary scheme of things.  Alice Shapley of Princeton University hopes that the similarities between local and distant young galaxies do not derail the standard evolutionary model.  “Just because some galaxies today have the same mass and size as others had in the distant past doesn’t mean that they’ll develop as the earlier ones did.”  However, mass and size are important starting values that determine the evolutionary track for stars and galaxies.  The third important parameter is the fraction of helium and heavier elements that are present in the starting mix. 


[1] Cowen, R., 2007.  “Match Made in Heaven,” Science News, 172, Oct. 6.