Remembering Jaime Escalante

When I taught my first math class in the Peace Corps, in September of 1974, I'd never heard of Jaime Escalante. That class, in O-level math, was directed at Fourth form (13-14 years of age) students at a comprehensive (public) school in Barbados. The syllabus included material that might even have been tough for American public school students at the same age level: matrices (see diagram of the type we explored), spherical trigonometry - including finding distances between cities on the Earth's surface (differing latitudes, longitudes), linear programming, and regular geometry with some basic algebra.

I was confident, however, because while I possessed no teaching diploma, I was a subject specialist (degree holder) in Astronomy and had under my belt nearly the equivalent of a Mathematics minor- including differential equations, Advanced calculus, Abstract Algebra and linear algebra. This specialization provided me with the resources and background to confidently teach a subject I'd never taught before - and attain terrific success in the external exams (marked by the O-level center at Cambridge University, UK).

Similarly, Jaime Escalante - made famous in the 1988 movie 'Stand and Deliver'- came from a specialist background, this time in engineering. He had the subject he proposed to teach down pat, and this was especially crucial when he commenced teaching AP Calculus to the students of Garfield High School in East LA. Predicated on one word, "ganas" (desire) Jaime drove his mostly Latino students to level of success never dreamed possible for an ordinary public school.

How did this transpire? I believe it was perhaps three-fifths Escalante's dedication and passion, but two-fifths his specialist background. As opposed to simply gaining a degree in "Education" - no specialist exposure to the level needed, Jaime had more than ample knowledge and insight from his engineering background.

This insight enabled him to arrive at the most expeditious methods of getting the AP Calc material over to his students- including the format for the drills he used. (One particularly fascinating one depicted in the movie was to show the students how to integrate by parts. I thought at the time, watching this, how many education degree holders would conceive of that? Not many!)

The tragedy is that Jaime's ingenious methods were never replicated or passed on. Why? One reason is that Jaime himself was removed from his department chair in 1990. A year later, dispirited, he returned to his native Bolivia. He came back subsequently to the States, but -now out of the teachig circuit- Garfield's results diminished.

Many have blamed the teachers' unions, but I think it goes deeper to the quality of teacher education. If one scans who the people are that are actually teaching in public schools, one finds few subject specialists. They are nearly all what I call specialists in pedagogy - but not the subject. Little wonder many lack the confidence to teach difficult subjects, or difficult aspects.

The reason Escalante's methods weren't replicated at Garfield, then, had less to do with the unions than the lack of confidence of the teachers who would have had to follow in his (very large) footsteps. Where the unions enter, perhaps, was in expediting Jaime's removal as head of the Garfield Math dept. when he could have remained and overseen the inculcation of his methods in other staff. Another issue the teachers unions had with him - from what I gather- is that he'd often pack his classrooms with as many as 50 students - way over the 35 limit. This didn't meant the students learned less, but perhaps lots of union members believed the same expectation to contend with enormous class size would be on them. (Footnote: One thing most teachers deplore is an overly large class size! In my case it was always around 27-30)

But why did Jaime have to deal with 50 students at once in his classes? Likely, because so many wanted to do his AP Calc classes, but there were too few confident or trained staff to pick up the slack. What needed to be done, was for other qualified members of the staff to be drill trained in Jaime's methods until they could virtually sleepwalk using them. I suspect Jaime was in part let go, because the 'powers that be' knew they would never get the qualified staff they needed to enable a successful replication. A pity.

In my own case, in Peace Corps math teaching - I had ample resources for backup if I needed them. I seldom did, other than an issue of adminstration - how long to spend on any given topic, etc. My methods were always to incite questioning and curiosity and let the students then contribute in any ways they could. For example, I might write on the board the wrong form for a rotation matrix - then let an eager beaver student correct me. They became more and more encouraged each time they "bested the teacher". (No, we didn't have computers in those days, this was 1974- at least seven years before the first Commodore 64s came onstream)

As for Jaime, he was an inspiration to all math teachers, and one hopes that all those students at Garfield and other public high schools will soon find a way to revive and replicate his teaching methods for those AP classes.

The students demand it, and it would be the most enduring tribute to Jaime's legacy!

Introducing Complex Functions (1)

Having spent some five blogs on basic complex algebra we’re now in a position to examine complex functions. Basically these are like regular function, e.g.

f(x) = 3x – 4

f(x) = 2x^2 + 2x -1

except that complex variables of the form z = x + iy are incorporated. All the basic operations we saw that apply to complex algebra, including polar forms (in sin(theta), cos(theta) or = exp[(i theta)] ) apply also to complex functions. Note that since complex functions are dependent on the complex variable z, we typically write them as f(z).

A good way to get started is by applying simple operations to functions.

For example, let f(z) = exp(-3z)

Find the real and imaginary parts of the function f(z)

Since z = x + iy, we may write:

f(z) = exp[-3(x + iy)] = exp(-3x) [exp(-i3y)]

and

f(z) = exp(-3x)[cos (3y) – isin(3y)]

Then : Re f(z) = Re exp(-3z) = exp(-3x)cos (3y)

And : Im f(z) = Im exp(-3z) = -exp(-3x) sin (3y)

Finding numerical values for functions in many ways resembles the way we do it for real functions, simply substitute the f-value to be found into the function f(z), viz.

f(2) for f(x) = 2(exp(x)) = 2 exp(2) = 2(7.389) = 14.796

f(1/2) for f(x) = ln(x) = ln(1/2) = - 0.693

f(3) for f(x) = 1/x^3 = 1/(3)^3 = 1/27

Now, some complex function values:

E,g, Find f(2i) for f(z) = - 3z^2

f(2i) = -3(2i)^2 = -3 (-4) = 12

More examples:

1. Find: f(-3i) for f(z) = (z + 2 – 3i)/ (z + 4 – i)

Again: f(-3i) = {(-3i +2 -3i)/ (-3i + 4 – i)}

= (2 – 6i)/ (4 – 4i) = 1 – i ½

2. Find f(2i -3) for f(z) = (z + 3)^2(z – 5i)^2

so: f(2i -3) = {(2i -3)+3}^2 (2i – 3 – 5i)^2 = {(-4)(18i)} = -72i

3. Let f(z) = ln r + i(theta) where r = abs(z) and theta = Arg(z)

Find f(1)

f(1) = ln 1 + i Arg(1) but we know that theta = pi/4 for Arg (1)

e.g. arctan(1) = 45 deg = pi/4

Then:

f(1) = ln 1 + i(pi/4)

4. f(i pi/4) for f(z) = exp(x) cos(y) + i(exp(x)sin(y)

Here, let z = r exp(i theta) then theta = pi/4

And exp(i pi/4)= cos(pi/4) + isin(pi/4) with r = 1

Therefore:

f (z) = exp(1)cos(pi/4) +i(exp(1)sin(pi/4) = i2.718(2 (2)^1/2/2) = 3.844i


Problems:

1. Find f(1+i) for: f(z) = 1/ (z^2 + 1)

2. Repeat for f(z) = z + z^-2 +5

3. Find: f(-2) for f(z) = ln r + i(theta), where r = abs(z) and theta = Arg(z)

4. Find f(1 +ipi/4) for f(z) = exp(x)[cos(y) + isin(y)]

5. Solve: (z + 1)^3 = z^3

Replicating the Big Bang

The recent news that the Large Hadron collider (LHC) successfully smashed two opposing beams of protons together at an energy of 3.5 Tev apiece is good news. It means that we are that much closer to replicating the conditions of the Big Bang in the laboratory - or at least in the LHC! Indeed, the (kinetic) temperatures produced in the recent collision were actually of such magnitude that they'd not been seen since the actual Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.

(Side note: The temperatures of which we speak are kinetic temperatures.That is to say, the magnitude of the temperature is almost totally invested in the particle motion, as opposed to heat content. Recall the heat content: Q = mc, where m is the mass and c the heat capacity. In this case, since the mass is so low, the heat Q would also be- though the internal energy U, in the mass m, would be very high by virtue of the fact it is comprised of the kinetic energies: K= [p^c^2 + m^2c^4]^1/2 - mc^2, of the relativistic particles of the beams. These yield velocities near the speed of light: v = 2.7 x 10^8 m/s).

When will we know IF the conditions of the Big Bang have actually been attained, as opposed to just seeing kinetic temperatures (T_e) at that scale? I believe it will happen IF we can confirm detection of the Higgs particle. How or WHERE does the Higgs enter the picture- given we are so desperately looking for it since it is presumed to be the mass-generating boson of the cosmos?

The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above represent different matrices (see for example, the diagram for SU(2).

Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks, SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force. One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past

In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism, and it demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

What if there is no Higgs detected? (This may not mean no Higgs exists - since evidence of absence need not be absence of evidence!). If not, then the standard model basically unravels, and we don't really know what we're talking about. Or at least theorizing about. You take away the Higgs, especially via the SU(2) and U(1) connections, and the whole tapestry we need to define mass essentially unravels. (Again, much higher energies may be needed to get it)

Even if we identify the Higgs, we haven't been liberated from the problems for the Standard model. There are other deficiencies, including: i) the Standard model cannot predict the coupling constants (e, g, g_s etc.); ii) it doesn't predict the mixing of quarks or the absence of mixing of lepton generations via the weak interaction; iii) the fermion masses are parameters that have to be experimentally determined; iv) the masses of the Z and W bosons- though predicted -depend on the Higgs mechanisms - but as I noted, this is what we need to find with the LHC!

Personally, I suspect that before the Higgs is found, the LHC will generate mini-black holes first. These would be about half the size of a hydrogen atom, maybe smaller. Will they "eat up" the world? Not likely, since a mini-black hole is really a quantum entity and leaks radiation all the time, eventually (after a few nanoseconds) vanishing.

Nor would I worry about a Big Bang - if finally replicated - blowing up the world. Again, none of the temperatures will actually produce the heat associated with that primodial event, only the kinetic temperatures!

How Can the Vatican Be This Dumb?

Well, I think Pastor Mike has taken enough heat for one day, so let's now go onto another set of religious fools and derelicts- the Vatican. And the pope!

As I watched events this past week I sat in stunned silence as:


1. Benedict, approached by an ABC reporter for a comment- reached out his right hand and slapped the reporter's hands and wrists daintily- reminding me of a nun (Sr. Francesca) I once had in Catholic grammar school. (I thought then if Benedict was ever forced to resign, he'd definitely make a good nun!)

2. A cardinal in the U.S. defended Il Papa Benedict by asserting that the world media's slings and arrows have tortured Benedict like Jesus was tortured in his passion.

Puh-leeze!

3. A senior Vatican priest (Raniero Catalamessa) - speaking on Good Friday- compared the world's outrage at the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church to the persecution of the Jews.

The last has to be especially choice. Especially as it was none other than the Vatican which assisted known Nazis and SS murderers, butchers to escape along the infamous "rat lines" to South America, after World War II. The sub-cabal charged with this was called Intermarium and it was Intermarium, in collusion with the U.S. (which needed Nazi espionage insights for its newly launched O.S.S.- later CIA) responsible for smuggling Nazis out of Europe- to the USA and South America.

All of these points have since been confirmed and extended in Aarons and Loftus book: 'Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis and The Swiss Banks' . Interested readers may also want to go here:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Ratlines_B_CS.html

What amazes me is that with all this history, which evidently the Vatican thinks the rank and file of people are too stupid to dig up - they can make such outrageous comments. This particular odious remark by Catalamessa is barely worse than one I heard from a Fundie appearing on the Phil Donahue show (MSNBC) in 2002, who opined - after Phil asked what will become of the Jews after they offer their homeland to the Christians for "Armageddon" purposes:

"Well, they are all gonna go to Hell, except for a chosen 144,000 who will get saved by the Lord and Savior Jesus"

The Vatican and Benedict are not only tone deaf on this issue of the massive worldwide abuse, but also morally "deaf" and bankrupt. They have used their pulpits and offices to make gratuitous inferences and attack the victims- rather than practice humility as their purported Savior admonished. The latest shtick from Catholic League bloviator Bill Donohue (also responsible for launching the attacks on the Golden Compass movie in 2008) is that the Church has been "singled out" for world wide opprobrium while equally massive abuse cases have occurred in other organizations, such as the Boy Scouts USA.

The problem with that is that it is the Roman Catholic Church which has always made the biggest deal out of sexual sins, whether masturbation, or "marital mutual masturbation" (the Church's cute term for married couples who have intercourse while using artificial birth control) to abortion and homosexuality. Thus, by attacking the victims, or trying to make specious excuses such as the priests are responsible- not the pope- they've disclosed themselves as moral cowards whose authority can and should be repudiated.

They are all worthless, certainly as arbiters of morality, and I'd warrant of fountains of truth as well- including any claims to "infallibility". Contrary to recent spin that "critics are trying to ensnare Church teachings on sexual morality in a contradictory dilemma" - the true fact is that the Church never had any authentically valid teachings in this sphere. Nearly all have been predicated on "natural law" teachings that don't hold up to scrutiny, and in addition the spurious equalization of gravity (in terms of "sin") of numerous sexual behaviors vis-a-vis mass murders, say) discloses an inherent logical incoherence that weakens the entire moral foundation. Thus, the Church has historically insisted (from "natural law") that a teen will go to "Hell" (in the state of mortal) sin, the exact same way that a mass murderer (like Jeffrey Dahmer) would - if the teen even commits one act of masturbation. This is irredeemable hogwash and tripe, and if this current abuse scandal causes the Church to back down and recant this idiocy, well and good! It was not all for nought.

What the ongoing Vatican and Papal nonsense shows more than anything is that people around the world need to grow up and have done with religions fully and finally. They don't need them, and so long as one has a brain to fill up the space between the ears, he or she can find their own way to a deity (if they need a deity- many of us don't require this crutch to inhabit reality). Indeed, as Philosopher Joseph Campbell once put it:[1]

"The psychologist Jung has a relevant saying: 'Religion is a defense against the experience of God.' The mystery has been reduced to a set of concepts and ideas, and emphasizing these concepts and ideas can short-circuit the transcendent, connoted experience."

In effect, IF people are really and truly looking for God, and not merely a crutch to salve their uncertainty and afterlife fears, then religion is about the worst way to do it. Religions, nearly all of them, interject a "middleman" or pseudo-authority between the god-seeker and the object of his quest, whether that be merely a brain morphism or transient spike in the temporal lobes, or what the seeker believes to be the "real McCoy".

Indeed, in so many religions, the search for deity is always contaminated and distracted by needless fears sown by those who would cling to their power as middle men at any cost. Of course, I am writing of the "Hell" bogey, which is a mere control device and nothing else (along with "Satan"). Both are used to keep the insecure in mental bondage, to prevent them from striking out on their own paths of spirtual exploration and self-knowledge.

Am I writing this to entice people to become atheists? Well, some would say so, but the truth is I am not. All I want is for people to loosen and break the chains holding them to spurious, detrimental religions - which stunt growth rather than advance it. I don't give a damn if a person wants to be an atheist or not. Truth be told, it's not for everyone, and I'd advise against it, until you go through a long, laborious period of searching first, like I did. (Alas, some - like my bro, appear to simplemindedly believe I just awakened one morning and decided to be an atheist. Not so, it was a decision made only after many decades of searching and finally realizing there is nothing there- no "god" who will save anyone from anything, since once you're dead that's it. There are no tomorrows, no harps, no heavenly clouds or ....for that matter, hells. It's finito)

Atheism is only for the toughest minded minority at the end of the day. Those who are prepared to be orphans in a purposeless cosmos, with no "Daddy Goddie" to hold their widdo hands. Those not intimidated by the religious bloviators in their midst, in the media or the larger culture. Those prepared to tell a "Pastor Mike", or Rev. Jim Jones, or Pope or any other pseudo-authority who presumes to speak for God, to stick it where the Sun don't shine.





[1] Joseph Campbell, in Masks of Eternity, in The Power of Myth, 1989 (Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers), Anchor Books, New York, p.261.:

Ouch! The Truth Hurts, Doesn't It, Mikey?

Which Mikey are we dealing with now? The Satan -fighter, or the Fool?

In my last blog I never named any names or site, deliberately. I chose instead to focus my attention on monumental scientific errors that were circulated in a blog piece in which it was claimed ancient biblical authors like Isaiah were eons ahead of their time in predicting Earth’s sphericity, and NT authors were accurate in asserting that Earth would end up with three “time zones” at the end of days.

Now, since the person whose blog this was directed to has chosen to name me in his blog and come after me, then I must return the favor to the obsequious and deceitful “Pastor Mike” who fantasizes he has delivered numerous ‘whuppins’ to me and that I "capitulated" to him numerous times. (Leaving out the fact he's suffering from delirium and likely operating in a realm of make believe.) He also needs to know that IF he were capable (ever) of delivering this phantasmagorical “whuppin’” he’d have demonstrated it at least once in cogent, logically sound arguments to any times I pulled him up on his biblical foolishness. Up to now, each time it's been a blank- though in his febrile brain, he manages to parlay that blank into a "whuppin". (You need to re-examine your definition of 'whuppin', Mikey!)

He never has.- not now either Once again, instead of offering logical and scientific rebuttals of my points, arguments in my last blog (which would disclose he could at least deliver a defense – if not an offensive “whuppin’), he has chosen to personally attack me – and now – having done so, I must return the favor.

He writes to begin with:

'You see , "Phil" runs an atheist hate (blog ) site under the guise of astronomy , physics , science , astrophysics , etc.. - though , it seems for the past year or so , he has continued to verbally attack not only myself and THIS blog , but Christianity in general . Oh , and while I'm thinking of it ,as I mentioned before , I am purposely NOT giving his blog address , as I refuse to give Satan and or his disciples any more of a soap box than they already have . "

Of course, Mikey – who calls himself a “pastor”, has it exactly wrong. This site – as any one with eyes and a brain can see, is catholic in its material (For Mike’s benefit, that isn’t a reference to a religion – but I will let you look it up in a dictionary). The content ranges from astronomy and physics (e.g. past articles dealing with the Big Bang, general astronomy questions, new discoveries, the solar cycle, sunspots, flares) to mathematics (complex analysis, Euclidean algorithms etc.) to economics (articles on the interest rate spread, on credit default swaps, and Wall street speculation) to philosophy (models of Mind provided) and yes, atheism and religions (when they go off base- as the Pope’s sex abuse scandal) as well as debunking myths which includes misrepresentations of science under the guise of religious indoctrination.

Now, unlike Mikey, I don’t self-censor and regard all those as my province for discussion. In particular, IF and when I see issues I want to address, I address them – they could be in the newspapers, or on blogs. I went after Mikey’s blog on this occasion because rather than stick to his bible myths and related horse manure he went off on a tangent and brought in astronomy aspects that were totally WRONG! Lest some might be misled, I therefore took it upon myself to correct them. In case Mike forgot, my first degree is in astronomy and I take it as a personal issue when I see malarkey written which is not only uninformative but egregious.

Rather than show me where or how I was wrong in my astronomy corrections of his drivel, Mike chose instead to whine, pout of being picked on then drag in “Satan” – as if Satan made the corrections, and not me. Time to go back to Bible world, Mikey and get your brain back in gear.

Note also, there were no specific attacks on HIM or his “Christianity” (which I don’t recognize as such – but rather a perverse, wild, Satan- worshipping, fear mongering Hell cult). All I did was to correct astronomical errors. If Mikey doesn’t like me barging into his "territory" like that, he needs to stay out of astronomy and stop pretending he knows anything…or his nomadic bible scribblers do! Anyway, he barges on:


"What I can't seem to understand is why good old "Phil , the atheist" just doesn't start another blog with an anti-Christ theme , (at least until he , prayerfully , gets saved ). At least he would be intellectually honest in doing so , huh ? But again , being "intellectually honest" is obviously a foreign concept to him , as evidenced in his past debates with myself and a brother in Christ , named Rene , (see my blog archives here from when I first started this blog last April ) . "

Well, first it’s Mikey and his breed that needs to get “saved”. Anyone who’s tossed out as much hate as he has, while professing to uphold Christianity has some business talking of me as an “anti-christ”. As for intellectual honesty, that is a choice attack basis from Mike. When all he has done in every time we’ve engaged in debates is to hide behind twisted meanings of words (“kill” is not the same as “murder”) and totally avoided other points introduced (necessary and sufficient conditions for his god) .

But what do you expect from a joker who fancies himself a latter day Moses?

Mikey goes on:

“Satan has "Phil's" finite brain so confused and all the "wires" crossed in it , that the poor lost atheist can't seem to make up his mind whether to talk (blog) about science , religion , politics , sex , or the man-in-the-moon”

Actually, it isn’t a question of “making up my mind”, Mikey. I simply blog on any issue I wish to blog on at that moment. Any I fancy. No limits, and no barriers, or fear of stepping on toes of touchy bros –who (if they don’t like my blog, or any of its subject matter) would have the sense to ignore it.

If it’s math, I do that, if it’s a twisted concept of antichrist, I do that. If its Wall street chicanery – that too. Or, if it’s a religious nut blogging on astronomical concepts he hasn’t the foggiest notion of, I will do that. Thus, on any given day I choose what I want as subject material, none are off limits or under the purview of “Satan”. In other words, I don't have a ONE TRACK mind like you!

Undeterred Mike in his gasbag manner, continues:

“Now , after getting "whupped" many times , and realizing his strawman and red-herring arguments simply don't work with me , he , true to form , picks up his marbles and goes home to lick his wounds . Then , just as sure as God is in Heaven , after a few days or so , he'll come back for more”

That’s hilarious since it’s actually YOU coming back for more, Mike. Just like when we were kids- growing up in Florida, I've beaten your butt now so many times it’s getting pathetic. Don’t you know or understand when you’ve been mastered? When you have been made to look like the pathetic little imp you are? At no time or place, other than in your frenetic, feverish mental ideations, have you ever “whupped” me in any debate. What I did rather, is choose to have mercy on you, and – like a Rottweiler after it’s savaged the ears of an ill-behaved pup - disengaged and allowed you to lick your wounds in peace.

BUT you keep coming back for more like the masochist you are! If you had half a brain, or a lick of sense, you’d have left sleeping dogs lie. WHY even come here to READ my blog if it gets you so rattled and incensed? You know you will pay for it.

If you had any remote ability to verbally “whup” me in debate, you’d have demonstrated it in your blog in response to my last entry. You’d have enlisted all the astronomy, mathematical, logical or other resources you could summon and showed me exactly how I was wrong in my arguments. But no, what do you do? You go off whining and crying about how big, bad Phil the nasty atheist has rained on poor little Mikey's facetious blog parade again, and just won’t leave him alone. Boo...hoo...hoo..Woosie, pooh…need a hankee….?

Mike, ever the impetuous bloviator, goes on in his inimitable style:

“Now , my friends , I guess that last paragraph is supposed to intimidate me into succumbing to the anti-Christ dogma of the spineless , gutless ACLU , SPLC , Obama-ites , Satanists , the Vatican , and oh yeah, 'da atheists , to name a few , huh ? YEAH RIGHT !”

Actually it wasn’t meant to intimidate you, Mikey, just warn you. But you do what you gotta do.

He goes on:

“But hey , I actually need to say "THANK-YOU" to "Phil" , as we never know - perhaps someone from the SPLC reading this blog will go to my I-Net church and decide to accept the LORD's Free Gift of Salvation - DO I HEAR AN AMEN ? Heh,heh,heh... I'd LOVE to have a blog heading reading , "PHIL,THE ATHEIST,BRINGS HEATHEN TO CHRIST ! "

Actually, the members of the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) are already Christians. Real Christians, following Christ’s injunctions in the beatitudes, not inveterate haters like you- who demand a spiritual apartheid and total intolerance. They don’t need to be “saved” because they know (as historian Paul Johnson has noted in his history of the United States) that “salvation on the Lord JC” was started by fire-breathing Elmer Gantry types in the early 19th century when they believed the Baptists and Calvinists were going “soft”. Right up to now these hater mongers have continued, like you and “pastor” Fred Phelps, who takes his sick minions to military funeral with signs held up that read “You are ALL GOING TO HELL”. Hell bender Hate mongers.

So no, the SPLC will watch you, but not bring anyone to your SATAN .

Mikey, undeterred, trudges on -determined to get that fiftieth paddling:

“In conclusion , since "Phil's" post of March 12 , 2010 , he has made 30 (THIRTY) blog posts (EXCLUDING his latest one of April 2 , 2010 ) . Out of those 30 , 9 (NINE ) of them , that's 30% , are surreptitious replies to my various posts , in which I NEVER even mentioned him ! So , has Satan made him paranoid , or what ?”

Not at all, since there is no “Satan” other than the embolism buried deep in your reptile brain – which you really need to come to terms with. Again, I'm not so "anal" I need to obsessively keep track of specific proportions or the statistical content for my blog for any time period. The very fact- as Mikey himself registers – my blog content is at least 70% non-religious (100% -30% = 70%) shows in clear terms it isn’t an “atheist blog” as Mikey claims. Nor was it ever set out with the intention of being such. Seems to me Mikey is way too obsessive -compulsive on how blogs are defined- as opposed to simply composing compelling material. But hey, maybe that's why he's reading mine so often!

What it also shows is that MIKE has a fixation on my blog and also is so self-absorbed he believes at least 30% is always about HIM – when it’s about the content! But what else can we expect from a character that doesn’t see when he’s been whipped like a ball peen hammer over a steel anvil.

Mike ends with this typical post-blather sermonizing – clearly not seeing how the "advice" he proffers to others qualifes as advice HE ought to be taking:

“Frankly , I have to agree with what a person told me awhile back about "Phil" - that is , he seems to have way too much time on his hands . Although not Scripture , I must agree with the old maxim , "Idle hands are The Devil's workshop."

Not idle at all, Mikey! I am currently completing my sixth book, and also volunteer each day (at least an hour) to help people on the All Experts site. This is in the areas of astronomy, astrophysics, and atheism-agnosticism. In addition, I am busy on the genealogy site ancestry.com, trying to complete the family tree up to the American Revolution).


“I'd like to humbly suggest to "Phil" that perhaps he could utilize some of his time doing volunteer work . Perhaps helping to feed people at homeless shelters , helping to clean invalid patients at a VA hospital , reading (the Bible) to the blind or illiterate , or maybe even getting some fresh air and picking up trash along the highways - just a few suggestions”

ROTFL! Actually, I DO engage in volunteer work, as I noted above. This is the best form for me, since I don't drive (eyes- legally blind) and with budget cuts in my town, 80% of bus routes have been eliminated. As for "helping people at shelters", etc. I do give a healthy amount each month for those causes, as well as disabled vets, Native Americans, Haiti etc..

As for “getting fresh air” – I just did this morning, with a 45 minute run. Plus I have an actual home with a 1/3 acre yard with grass to mow, weeds to weed - I don't live in a small apt. What about you, Mikey? From those photos I saw of you when you came back from Orlando, it looks like YOU could use some outside time: picking up trash in front of your apt. or maybe even getting some walking in. Oh yeah, and helping the needy at shelters instead of participating in a hatefest on your blog. Show that you can at least deliver a scintilla of that "Christian love" your Master preaches on, as opposed to the incessant hellfire threats. YOU are the Christian that's obliged to LOVE your neighbor as yourself, in case you forgot.

Here’s a last bit of advice for you, sonny: If you don’t like the content of this blog, don’t click on it. Got it? I hate Lush Limburger and his talk radio crap, so I don’t tune in the channel. You – I suggest- do the same here. It will leave you more time for your regular biblical blogging!

More Bible-Based "Scientific" Idiocy

Can there be a limit to scientific ignorance? Well, both Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan believed there wasn't, especially from the religious zealots. Because people think they know science, or some aspect like astronomy, they feel compelled to talk off the tops of their heads about it. (Or, maybe they just copy from Googled links).In a recent blog on a fundamentalist website, for example, assorted explanations and reasons were offered for why the Earth could not be ‘flat’ and why (again!) the biblical authors were way ahead by asserting the Earth was “round” – and that this can somehow be construed to mean the Earth is spherical. So the bible’s sheep herders predicted Earth’s sphericity before Eudoxus or Aristotle.

Not so fast!

First, the claim that Isaiah 40:22 predicts a spherical Earth because it says “round Earth”, e.g.

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."

No, not so! Roundness (circularity) and sphericity are two different properties. One (circularity) applies to a simple two dimensional surface or geometry. Indeed, the property of circles was investigated by Sumerian and Egyptian mathematicians long before any of the biblical authors emerged from their caves.

As I pointed out also in an earlier blog, the particular property of sphericity can only be determined by the use of mathematics. Without mathematics, people would believe the Earth is a round, flat space. How so? If one looks across a vast, flat horizon – either from the middle of a desert or the ocean- the perspective one obtains is that of a vast FLAT expanse with a circular boundary at the far periphery. Thus, the impression created in an ancient mind – without use of discriminating mathematics- would be that he or she inhabits the center of an enormous flat circle!

How did the ancient Greek astronomers (e.g. Eratosthenes) break out of this and arrive at sphericity? In Eratosthenes’ case, around 240 B.C., he had to first decide what exactly he had to measure to assess sphericity as opposed to circularity. This is where a key assumption entered: that the Earth was spherical and the Sun distant enough that its rays at Earth were essentially parallel.

Eratosthenes thereby performed a measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon at Alexandria, and at Syene. This value could then be used to obtain Earth’s circumference, at 250,000 stadia or about 24,900 miles. The repeat of the experiment from thousands of different directions, orientations, shows sphericity not just circularity. Why? Because if Eratasothenes (or any of his thousands or millions of followers – who repeat the experiment even today at assorted universities) were measuring a circle, they’d have to be on the circle’s EDGE to obtain its circumference . Cut out a circle from cardboard and examine it. Any distance on the circle itself would be a chord, not a circumference. One would have to stand or situate exactly ON THE EDGE to get the circumference. No untrained, non-mathematical ancient mind would remotely contemplate this, because to him one would “fall off” at the edge. (Gravitational physics would need another 2500 years to be developed by Galileo and Newton)

Thus, the very act of measuring a circumference using a shadow angle (and trigonometry) on any part or place of Earth implicitly presumes its sphericity , since the extension of all such measuring lines leads to a circle that can be oriented around any direction across Earth. What then is the sphere? Technically – as we see from calculus, it is the integration of an infinite number of conic sections that are each circles – which results in a sphere (see diagram).


Thus, mathematically, we take a circle – say defined by:

x^2 + y^2 = 4

And rotate it around the x-axis to generate a sphere. This is done by using calculus to integrate: pi(4 - x^2)dx from (-2) to +2. Thus, in the process of rotation an infinite series of circles is generated, to obtain a sphere with radius 2 and volume 33.427 cubic units. That the integration yields cubic units – proves that the result is a sphere since circles lack volume as geometrically defined.

Another error made by fundies, associated with the above, is the claim that if Earth was really a flat circle, sunlight would never be blocked out because “only on a sphere could the sun be blocked out on different sides of the planet.” This is not strictly true, because the property whereby light gets distributed over time is not sphericity but the fact that the earth rotates so all parts receive sunlight at different times! (One revolution every 24 hours, actually every 23 h 56 mins)

The ancients had not yet processed sphericity and hence no rotation of Earth (to generate days and nights). Thus, they beheld the situation as depicted in Fig. 2. They inhabited a flat circular Earth and the SUN moved across the sky each day to provide day and night. When the Sun went below the western horizon it was evening, then night. When the Sun appeared on the eastern horizon it was morning. To read Isaiah 40:22 and then assert the roundness is really sphericity and argue that there'd be no day & night without it, is therefore wrong-headed and turns the actual situation on its head. Remember, in the ancients' world view it was the Earth that was stationary and always at the center of the universe (geo-centric view) all else moved around Earth - including Sun, stars etc. This perception configures exactly with Fig. 2.

Thus one cannot assert or claim that biblical quotes such as Isaiah 40:22 – referring to a circle- actually imply a sphere. NO, they don’t. People read into those quotes what they want. They so much NEED the quotation to be accurate – to prove their spurious “divine inspiration” that they will torture and twist the meaning to make it so.

What about the claim that only “three time zones” will emerge at the end of days: “daylight, evening and night.”( Matthew 24:40-41, Luke 17:34-36) )

This confuses the meaning of a time zone, with an interval fraction of the day referenced to quality of sunlight. Thus, “daylight, evening and night” don’t refer to time zones but to differing intensities of light referenced to fractions of the revolution period of Earth -which show marked contrasts in light quality – measured in lumens. Thus, “evening” is defined to have about twice the available lumens as “night” (assuming no moonlight) while day is many thousands more times magnified.

A “time zone” is defined by taking the 360 degrees through which Earth rotates in one day, and dividing it by 24, since it requires 24 hours to make one revolution. Thus, one standard time zone would be generated via (360 deg/ 24 hr) = 15 deg/h or 15 degrees of longitude per hour - so be 15 degrees of longitude in expanse. Thus, time zones (calibrated per HOUR) are marked out by LONGITUDE differences, not illumination differences!

Time zones don’t mean anything until referenced or calibrated to a fixed position-location, and that is the Greenwich Meridian, defined as 0 degrees longitude. All longitudes west of Greenwich mark time earlier – and all longitudes east of Greenwich mark times later. Thus, Berlin will always have a time later than London, and London will have a time later than New Orleans. The time difference is referenced to longitude difference for the central meridians. For example, if London is at 0 degrees longitude, and New Orleans is at 90 degrees west longitude, then New Orleans is earlier than London by (90 deg/ 15 deg/h) = 6 hours. If the time in London is noon local mean time, then it is 6 a.m. in New Orleans

In order to solve the problem of different local mean times, Greenwich Mean Time or GMT was developed, so people can compare the same clock times around the world GMT is based on a 24 hour clock defined at the Greenwich Meridian. So, for example, if one is listening to the BBC from New Orleans and the time given is 13h 30 m GMT, then that means it’s 1.30 p.m. in London. Since New Orleans is 6 hours earlier, than that means it’s 7.30 a.m. local mean time in New Orleans. Thus, knowing GMT, one can always work out the time at one’s location if one knows the longitude difference relative to Greenwich. (Note for the purposes here, I am taking London as having the same longitude as Greenwich. It's actually off by a few thousand feet but negligible in terms of computations.)

In line with this, let’s take on another myth, the claim that if Jesus returns “everyone on Earth will see him”. This is impossible, since – as we’ve seen- if and when he returns (likely not, since it’s a myth) he has to pick one longitude of location to return to – he can’t return to ALL longitudes of the Earth at the same time! They are spread out across some 25,000 miles!

Even if he arrived – say at Greenwich meridian- at noon tomorrow, he could not be seen instantly everywhere! Even if he moved at the speed of light (186,000 miles/ sec) it would require 0.134 seconds (134 milliseconds) to whirl east around the world from London- appear at all longitudes- and return. (And it’s doubtful people would see any more than a blip of light) Thus, the claim is more nonsense.

Before leaving, two more bits of codswallop to knock off:

1) The claim that reference to seeing a “vault of heaven” means or implies Earth’s sphericity. No it doesn’t. The earliest rendition of the sky in relation to Earth was as a vault (for example, see the frontispiece of Fred Hoyle’s textbook, Astronomy and Cosmology) with the Earth at the base as a FLAT circle. (See Fig. 2) Indeed, the horizon system for observers to this day makes use of this imagery for angular measurements – altitude and azimuth- though we don’t take it literally!

2) Matthew 4:8 declaring “Jesus and Satan viewing the entire earth from a tall mountain” is palpable idiocy. Even from Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain on Earth, one cannot “see” the entire Earth – only about 4000 square miles (about 5 mllionths or 5/1000000, of Earth’s total surface area), and that assumes clouds don’t obscure anything (nearly impossible to assume!). To see the “entire Earth” one would have to be displaced a distance to enable a full view (and by “entire” here, what I mean is the Earth seen as an orb from space). For example, the film on Apollo 17 I just finished watching showed the entire Earth when Apollo was about 25,000 miles away en route to the Moon. So unless Jesus and Satan went into space they wouldn’t see the “entire Earth”

It is nonsense like this that makes communication with fundie gasbags and blowhards all but impossible. So convinced they are that their “good Book” is inerrant and divinely inspired, they can’t process or see the stupid scientific claims they make to try to turn their KJVs into science texts (or even approximate ones, in terms of insisting the authors knew what they were really yapping about)

Now, if they have FAITH that some or all of their KJV is roughly in concert with scientific claims and principles, that’s fine. But don’t try and tell us that your KJV leads the way and its sheep herder nomads knew things before Galileo, Newton or Einstein! You just make a mockery of yourselves in the process.

Best move? Stick to your faith and bible but leave out the attempted scientific discourses and efforts to convince us of anything!

DO the Dems need lessons in partisanship?

Yes, you read that correctly. I didn’t write “bipartisanship” – because with few exceptions in today’s political climate, that is a useless, naïve, and appeasing stance to take. It essentially allows the other side to dictate terms to you, as they exploit their negative stance for political advance. Look at how the Repubs have parlayed their incessant no’s to all of Obama’s entreaties into a powerful political position that could actually cost the Democrats 10-20 seats in the House, and maybe five in the Senate come November.

Let me repeat here, in case certain Demos have heads too hard to get it - what provocateur Grover Norquist once wrote about “bipartisanship”:

“In terms of the democrats, we regard it like we would date rape: we get and they give”.

Need I go further? If that is their attitude, then why allow yourself to be repeatedly date raped, which interpreted by Rachel Maddow last night –means the debate and issue forum is constantly turned to the Right? This means any Left positions are incessantly diminished.

Now enter Barack Obama. He claims that policies must move “beyond Left or Right” and so he has allowed drilling to be done off Florida’s west coast, and off the Atlantic coast – from about Virginia south to the Carolinas. He insists this was a difficult judgment and made for the benefit of our economy and to cut oil costs, deficits, etc.

Alas, this is all fulsome codswallop. Save it for the peanut gallery, Barack. As both Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow pointed out last night, the actual oil volume that might be delivered for all that drilling is maybe two months supply, if that.

If the U.S. actually wanted to limit its oil indebtedness to Middle Eastern potentates and Oil kingdoms, the better move would have been to not have launched two massive invasions and occupations in the past 10 years. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the total oil consumed has been nearly 1.5 trillion barrels, or almost seven years worth of U.S. supply. Add in the $150 billion it’s going to cost to ship all war materiel out of Iraq and you have another 6 years worth of supply. That is 13 years of oil supply gone up literally in smoke, or more than 150 times more than Obama is likely to get from his drilling – which also has the potential to foul the coastlines.

So as the MSNBC commentators have noted, this isn’t about economy, or security or anything else – it is a political ploy, a sop tossed to some Repubs (like Lindsey Graham, SC) to hopefully entice them to vote for a climate change bill. (We wonder what kind of bill that must be to enable new oil drilling). But like all of Obama’s other bipartisan sops, the Repukes won’t bite. I can lay that out right now as a bet in Vegas, and I know I’d win.

Why hasn’t Obama learned from his health insurance reform overhaul? Why can’t he see that it is damned near ‘dumb as hammer’ strategy to risk pissing off your base with upcoming midterm elections? Maybe, as Shelby Steele noted in a WSJ opinion piece yesterday, it’s because he really believes he’s a “transformative” president who can transcend the Right-Left divide….and walk on water.

But the news here is that this is wishful thinking. This is a hard core, Left-right country, and was made even more so by Bush’s eight years, in which he ran roughshod over everything liberals (and most democrats) hold dear: from his despicable violations of the 1978 FISA Act and the warrantless searches derived there from (now declared unlawful in a 45-page opinion yesterday by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker - the 3rd federal judge in a row to do so), to launching two pre-emptive wars (which have so far killed over 600,000 innocent civilians according to WHO reports, and violated Article IV of the Nuremberg Laws,), to setting up CIA torture sites in violation of international law, to his Oil mandates and drilling – which have despoiled dozens of national parks while also putting citizens’ health at risk. And now, with Bush gone, Obama expects the Left to forgive and forget and “move on”. Not bloody likely!

According to the latest polls in the wake of Obama’s drilling announcement, the Democratic base is once again demoralized and unenthused about the November elections, while the Republican base is re-energized. After the health insurance reform victory this ought to be reversed – never mind the bill was pretty weak and largely a gift to the insurers(the Dem lawmakers- or authors- couldn’t even get the language straight in one section – and enabled insurers to continue refusing to insure a child for pre-existing conditions, if they decided not to insure him at all)

One has to therefore wonder if it is really true that the democrats have a yen for figuring out how to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory, or whether they’re congenitally stupid (with zero political timing or insight)or maybe just born wussies – who emulate the weak wimp in school that has his lunch taken from him each day. Then comes back the next day to give it up once more – as opposed to a punching in his tormentor’s face.

As long ago as August, 2002, Michael Tomasky observed in his article 'Dems Fightin' Words' ( The American Prospect) that the Dems have lost the ability to parry, thrust, fight and RESPOND!

Tomasky observes, accurately I believe - from what I have witnessed - that the Dems eschewed political point-making and "hard nosed", no-holds barred political partisanship sometime in the early 70s. They replaced it with discussing fact-based policy points, which appeal to "reason" and "temperance" but do little or nothing for core partisans. The very people Dems need to get out to the polls each mid-term election. As he observes:

"Apart from judicial battles, the Democrats don't have much fight in them."

Well, after rolling over in the face of a Repug "nuclear option" threat to slaughter the filibuster, and allowing Alito and Roberts through to Supreme Court positions (which came back to bite the Ds in the ass - with that corporate money ruling recently) I am not so sure.

Tomasky attributes this substitution of rational" policy talk for good, old-style politicking to a loss of identity that particularly accelerated with the onset of the Reagan plague years. The problem was that, in making this conscious switch of emphasis, the Dems lost the ability to really fight - verbally.(Note how often they lose the critical language wars to the Rs, then punk out totally and retreat from defending their earlier positions).

No wonder they are constantly one-upped by Repub PR and spin machines.Factored into this was the diminution and loss of an overarching and motivating vision which keeps all the Rs energized and going to the polls- though they may differ on various platform matters and how to implement them (like 'faith-based' charities).

As Tomasky notes, the Rs are "unified around a central idea which can be expressed in both positive and negative language: that they are the conservators of liberty and morality, and that liberals are sending the country to hell in overdrive. Whatever Republicans do or don't believe they believe in those two hypotheses. This unity gives them their passion." In effect, the Repubs KNOW what they are fighting for, the Democrats do not. (Else they wouldn't so often splinter in their voting - as with the Bush tax cuts and more recently, health reform).

Tomasky argues that the Dems have paid a huge price in lost voters for their turning to "reason and balanced" talk, rather than appealing to emotions (at least some of the time) like the Rs do. In addition, their lack of aggression at critical points during the past 20 years - when they had the opportunity to define themselves- have left many others yawning and not too impressed- hence the conscious choice to be independents - like me.

Tomasky concludes by saying that no, it isn't necessary to "ape the Repubs" or be partisan ALL the time. But it is on some issues and at particular times when partisanship "can be a virtue and a necessity."

It surely wasn't in terms of environmental issues (critical to many liberals, as well as independents) merely to tos a bipartisan sop to the Rs.

Tomasky's final sentence says it all:

"Until the dems embrace politics, become proud partisans and figure out who they are, they will continually be clobbered."

In terms of 'who they are' - maybe, just maybe - they'd like to drop their neo-liberal homage to the "markets" first. A good start would be to get off their asses and ram through (via reconcilation) an actual finance regulation bill with TEETH!

They also might want to recall JFK's words from one of his speeches:

"For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future "