Relativity. by Dean Gotcher

Relativity.

Dean Gotcher

The law of relativity, that light bends when it passes by large bodies of mass, such as the sun, and therefore the laws of nature are changed by the environment they are exposed to, is simply the dialectical process applied to the laws of nature. This is comparable to how a person acts at home (private), vs. how he acts at the family reunion (public). If he is not grounded in absolutes, his behavior is subject, i.e. relative to the environment he is exposed to. Relatives have this effect on you, i.e. when they have a lot of money and like you, yet you don't like them, you change your behavior while around them to hopefully get something from them you like, i.e. money, i.e. behavior is based upon the environmental conditions, providing that you are principled in relativity and not principled in absolutes. Thus the law of relativity. It is all trickery in that light will bend with a fixity to the mass of an object, such as the sun. The only relativity is the environment it happens to be within. This is no different than any law of nature. Air molecules will spread apart on the upper part of a wing, and therefore provide lift when a plane is being thrust through the air, thus overcoming the law of gravity. No law is negated, no law becomes "relative," i.e. is "swallowed up" by the other, i.e. is negated. The plane's position in time and space, just like light, is based upon the laws which are being applied to it (drag, thrust, lift, gravity). All laws are fixed. To use the word relativity to negate absolutes is to negate objective truth and make everything in life subject to feelings and thoughts, i.e. opinions. The laws of nature existed before man discovered them and you were taught them. We know them by learning about them from teachers, or from reading books, and can observe them for ourselves. There are those who want the next generation to go back to the "dark age," and re-discover the laws of nature for themselves, so they do not have to be exposed to memorizing laws of "fixity" in an environment of "fixity." "Any time we teach a child something, we keep him from discovering it himself," (Piaget) "Memory is not education, answers are not knowledge. Certainty and memory are the enemies of thinking, the destroyer of creativity and originality." (William Glasser, Schools Without Failure)

"If a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to the point where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied (which eventuates in) an increasing shift in the distribution of professional allegiances (where upon) the man who continues to resist after his whole profession has been converted is ipso facto ceased to be a scientist." Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

"Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it." Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Thomas Kuhn quoting Max Planck's famous dictum.

A true scientist would go mad if he had to function in an environment of "relativity." Only those who like to play scientists, who hate fixed laws, i.e. hate reality, love such an environment and want their continuum of relativity to be the standard of life, i.e. your worth as a scientist relative to your acceptance of their continuum of relativity. This is called, in the real world of science, voodoo science, and is hated by engineers around the world, Cf. people who design and build planes for example, who have to deal with reality (two space shuttles were destroyed, killing all astronauts on board, because of the use of this "so called" scientific process). They might like to experiment, and play with laws to make things work better or different but they do not experiment on the public by forcing them to participate as social engineers do, i.e. as so called scientists do. The only reason for the misuse of the word relativity, using it in the realm of human behavior, is to free man from absolutes, laws of fixity, which bind him to laws beyond his human nature. If followed through to its "logical outgrowth," all laws are relative, "changeable," depending upon the environment they happen to be in. This is madness. The laws of nature do not "change," they simply respond to the laws of nature, i.e. fixity, consistency. The fact that gravity is countered by thrusting an airplane wing through air, to create lift does not change the law of gravity, a persons point in time and space is simply based upon laws being applied on them at that moment. Therefore a person is fixed to a point in time and space just as are the laws of nature. The issue of motion, i.e. change, is the factor which man can not overcome in his quest to tie the laws of nature to himself. In man, e-motion, i.e. feelings, is the dynamo for change and unlike the laws of nature, they are the dialectic's tool to reality and necessitate the theory of relativity for man to be freed from fixity, i.e. freed from absolutes, before a holy and righteous creator.

"… in all metaphysics the object remains untouched and unaltered so that thought remains contemplative and fails to become practical; while for the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality.… reality with its ‘obedience to laws , [which are] impenetrable, fatalistic and immutable." György Lukács History & Class Consciousness Class Consciousness What is Orthodox Marxism? March, 1919

In reference to Einstein's "theory of relativity" tied to a "space-temporal framework," "moral relativists" claim they are not establishing any judgment upon what is meant by being right or wrong morally, their claim is how the person or people came to that decision. They are, in dialectical fashion, looking as systems (closed vs. open), i.e. ways of thinking, and not at content, i.e. right and wrong, i.e. although content will change, (be kept, rejected, or reinterpreted, i.e. absorbed dialectically), based upon its relevance to the system, value is affected by, i.e. is defined by, as well as affects, i.e. defines, the environment it is found within, i.e. is based upon which system it is found within.

In the closed system, right and wrong, out-rightly rejects or accepts content, i.e. content has relevance based upon pre-determined standards, i.e. prejudice establishes the system (absolutes). Worth and value is establishes, i.e. not changeable by space or time. Dialectically, such a system can be recognized only as theoretical, it can not be accepted as reality, it can only be accepted as a "neurotic" possibility. "Individuals move not from a fixity through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed possible. But [through a] continuum from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to process." (Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person)

In the open system, content is rejected or accepted, based upon it's usefulness within the system (feelings), its value being based upon the situation at hand. Right and wrong is therefore relative to space and time. The error in this way of thinking is that laws of nature, found within space and time, have an effect within space and time, but are not determined by space and time, i.e. motion, i.e. e-motions, i.e. feelings. The "how" affects the "what" (the system affects the content) and therefore it is a lie to say that there is no claim made upon the "what people mean," as moral relativists do. It just reflects their bias against closed systems and true science.

Both systems, i.e. continuum and fixity, are anathema to each other. For an open system to participate (co-op) with the the closed system, in the praxis of determining and enforcing right and wrong, the open system must die (you can not dissolve dirt into pure water and still have pure water, i.e. you can not have a closed system-open system partnership and still have a closed system, the closed system is forever persecuted by the open system, i.e. it can not buy or sell within the open system). The same is not true for the closed system with its participation (co-oping) with the open system. It's attempt at partnership with the closed system will either result in rejection of the open system or death to the closed system. For those in the open system to state the recognition of the closed system, as an option, is death to the open system, if it should accept the closed system's definition, and death to the closed system, if it should accept the open system definition. The closed system of pre-set right and wrong openly presents it's unchanging position in space and time while the open system of relative right and wrong must manipulate, i.e. deceive the closed system into participation to annihilate it. In true science, a catalyses is often used to bring two opposing elements together into partnership, along with pressure and heat. But this is all done by fixed laws of nature. To do this with man carries with it an evil intent, unless you think absolutes are evil and relativity is good.

Those in the open system giving place to the closed system, allowing them to be accepted in participation, simply allows time to swallow up the closed system (deceive it into participation), something the laws of nature do not tolerate, since one law in nature does not swallow up another law of nature (laws of nature do not come to consensus, go into partnership, find common ground, etc.), although that may be what human perception things. (I hope you are noticing the contempt and hostility which the open system, relativity, has toward the closed system, absolutes. Thus, one system can not participate within the others system without embracing the other systems and its outcome. Moral absolutes can not dialogue, present itself as another opinion, since established right and wrong is not based upon how a person feels or things, i.e. human perception (materialist can not handle this), and moral relativism can not preach and teach absolutes since absolutes inhibit relativity, i.e. spontaneity and change, i.e. changing in changing with space and time.

"Driving forces are those forces or factors affecting a situation which are 'pushing' in a particular direction; they tend to initiate a change and keep it going. Restraining forces may be likened to walls or barriers. They only prevent or retard movement toward them. When we have determined the nature of forces which are affecting the present state of affairs we can think more clearly in selecting the forces or factors which should be modified if the conditions are to change in the direction we desire . . . our task then becomes either to increase the total strength of the driving forces for change or to decrease the total strength of forces opposing change or both." Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change

Dialectical truth, i.e. change, has no meaning outside of e-motion. "Feelings" making right and wrong subject to an open system, a space-time continuum. Thus dialogue is the means of realigning, discovering, or modifying right and wrong in any given space and at any given time. This can not be true for a preach and teach closed system with absolute truth. God did not dialogue to consensus with Adam and Eve, instead he drove them them out of the garden, based upon his absolutes. Jesus did not dialogue with the Serpent, to find consensus, but instead drove him away by keeping his Fathers thesis position, preaching and teaching his Fathers absolutes. It was Satan who got Eve to dialogue, to come to consensus with the world system, i.e. human reasoning, and it was Adam and the rest of the world which followed. Closed and open systems, i.e. specific and general systems (unambiguous systems and ambiguous systems), although applying their opposite within their system. For example the closed system would accept that bird's evolve within their kind while the open system, applying their relativistic law of "necessity"—"If I can't change I'll die"—is the law which says that birds evolve to a higher state of the need to survive, i.e. up the continuum of change, i.e. their is no according to its kind, only moments in the evolutionary change. The only problem evolution has is that everything in nature is after its kind and nothing is evolving between kinds. It has to be frustrating to have to keep preaching and teaching and illusion, and still call yourself a scientist. Thus, because their theory of relativity, the must make all content fit with, i.e. subject to their open system. They can not accept the closed system or their system would die. "If the 'restoring of life' of the world is to be conceived in terms of the Christian revelation, then Marx must collapse into a bottomless abyss." Jürgen Habermas Theory and Practice As a friend of mine says "You can't be half pregnant, you either are or you are not." Those with an open mind can only hope stop the closed minded from preaching and teaching, deceiving them into open dialogue with them, i.e. to win a point and thereby be them to "devalue" the authority of God and his word, i.e. "the devaluation of the epistemic authority of the God's eye view." produces "the collapse of its religious foundation." Jürgen Habermas 1998 Communicative Ethics Source: The inclusion of the Other. Studies in Political Theory.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:18

If the theory of relativity, applied to values and ethics, i.e. right and wrong, becomes accepted as paradigm for all to follow, then all absolute laws must become relative to the law of relativity, reviewed under a neo-relativistic lens. It is not that these laws will be considered as being in error, only that they are wrongly perceived, discovered by a limited "error theory" of absolutes, i.e. a patriarchal paradigm. The issue is not the laws, it is the perception of the laws, the system with which they are known, i.e. the "how," which determines their relevance. Thus, according to dialectical reasoning, all "spatio-temporal frameworks" make judgments, subject to their (limited, i.e. closed) perception and must all be subject to an open system to take on global relevance. Thus all truth must be discovered, in an open system of unrighteousness.

Trickery again: moral relativists can not accept moral absolutism (error theory) system by stating that their system is absolute. This is like a person, falling out of a plane, not believing in gravity, trying to convince others, falling with him, fearing for their lives, not to worry, since we are not certain about gravity.

Again, it is not the judgments which are of concern but rather the method used to arrive at them. Although Newton perceived the earth as the center of the universe, although his perception of the earths position in the universe was wrong, did not make the laws he discovered wrong. They were right, relative to his knowledge of the universe, according to the limited area of his perception. His truth would have been as true if he had observed them from any other planet. He just did not have the full picture, being parochial in his experiences, limited in his tools of evaluation. But what is being said by the relativists is that another persons truth would be just as true for him, even if it was wrong to scientific observation, which was not true for Newton. The laws of nature are the laws of nature, i.e. true science, no matter what part of the universe you happen to be observing from. The trickery is that of setting the closed system as a moral framework of diverse kinds, each making judgments of perception, being morally right or wrong to their particular sphere of influence. Thus we have moved away from set laws of nature to laws of mans own making, "thought experiments," truth being relative to man's opinions around the world, all truth being relegated to human perception. This condition must be established for the open system to justify itself.

Since all closed systems are wrong concerning the overall conditions of nature, right only in their particular sphere, then their right and wrong is relativistic to their perception. This is true for human reasoning but can never be true for science. To do so is to move into what the apostle Paul called so called science, "avoid oppositions [antiyesiv antithesis] of so called science," (I Timothy 6:20). Anyone venturing here will lose their faith, i.e. lose their close minded system of absolutes, if they participate in the open minded system of relativity, including any true scientist. For a materialist, who does not have faith (an imperative for salvation), "so called science" makes "sense," for those with faith in God, it is foolishness. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:22). We know that light can be bent by the force of gravity, does that negate the truth that light travels in a straight line. To classify the one as "error theory" and the other as "correct theory" is, to say the least, asinine to a true scientist, i.e. a "truth" scientist. To equate the bending of light by gravity as justifying relativity for man is foolishness. It only takes on relevance to "so called scientist," who thinks truth is relative and relativity is truth. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1). As the classics Marxists say, "Don't walk by open windows." in other words, since everything is opinions, i.e. relative, you might just walk out the window thinking you can walk on air, who knows, maybe today you can.

Ironically, since moral relativists can only see the truth through human perception, they must reject a closed system, since it is absolute, requiring faith, they therefore can only evaluate, i.e. judge by an open system, which makes it a closed system. All open systems are closed systems, closed to open system which close them, which makes them a double closed system, inverted closure, i.e. you can not reason with double closed mind since they think they are the only one in the room who can reason. Only a person who is indifferent to closed and open systems, i.e. brain dead, i.e. brain washed, is freed from a closed system. Any judgment, even on judgments, is a closed system, even when they say they do not want to come to a closed system, i.e. an established judgment, that they are only making an opinion known amongst opinions, they are a closed system. To be tolerant, except to the intolerant, is intolerance. Since man is not all knowing, limited to his perception of the world, based upon space and time, without revelation of who he is, he has only nature to use to establish right and wrong. When he bases nature upon his opinions, i.e. his feelings and thoughts, all right and wrong becomes subject to his caprice. Caprice, intellectually justified or not, can never tell him who he is, where he came from, or where he is going. Apart from God revealing these conditions to man, man thinks he has only the creation to establish his morals. This is not true, for God has given all a measure of faith. That fact alone condemns the continuum of relativity. The laws of nature are established, whether man knows them or not, he knows, by their consistency, that they are unchanging in themselves. Therefore he is unjustified in his relativistic attitude toward truth. His actions only reveal his wicked heart, seeking for any excuse to be free himself from God and his law. Like children having tantrums. they must attack anything which exposes them for what they are, children of disobedience.

In the space-time continuum, absolutes have no relevance, subject only to the process of change, i.e. relativity. On the one side of their continuum, time is set and unchanging, countable by nanoseconds, never to be had again, on the other side time is based upon change, i.e. feelings, i.e. a minute is relative to which side of the bathroom door you happen to be on at the present time, it is based upon a persons "comfort zone." It is here that moral relativism takes its stand, not based upon true science, but rather based upon the relativity of men's opinions, the feelings and thoughts of man. As apples are to earthquakes, so is Einstein's theory of relativity to moral laws. Only those who are deceived or hate God and his laws of restraint promote them. Loving the sound of their voice and the endorphins of their brain and the pleasures of this life and the praises they receive from the ignorant.