[geocentrism] Re: General Relativity (and cells)

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:32:45 -0800

Martin,

Very nice post and I thank you for taking the time to write it. Your knowledge of the human eye is clearly (pun) far superior to mine. I have contemplated the points that you make and hereby retract the 7-year recycling that I always assumed until now to be true, although the issue was never essential to my stance that body and spirit are two different things, and that it is the spirit which has the opportunity to survive physical death (which I think was Jack's original line of questioning).

Regards,

Neville.


-----Original Message-----
From: mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:25 -0500

Neville,

The lens is an avascular structure that is nourished primarily through the aqueous humor, less so through the vitreous humor. There is a gradient of metabolic interconnection heading toward the nucleus of the lens, where the embryonic cells are located. The tightness of the intercellular fit, so to speak, requires special gap junctions to permit transfer of nutrients through the lens cortex into the nuclear region, and these have been identified and verified. Those cells had to lose their nucleus (not only to bar uncontrolled growth, thereby ruining function of the lens, but also because transparency derives from the cytoplasm alone). The cells do retain their mitochondria and other organelles during the process of suturing themselves together in consecutive laminae to form the lens. In any event, although the metabolism of the cells is slower than for other bodily structures, if the lens were not alive and actively metabolizing, transparency would be lost and you'd be blind. So you should be grateful those are living, active cells in the nucleus of your lens, with an amazing transport system for bringing in nutrients and removing waste products to keep the lens functional.

You can cut off nails or hairs and not have much of a problem (except maybe a deserved social one), but remove the embryonic cells, the lens nucleus, and you've got a major vision problem on your hands. Those structures are functional. I don't see the comparison you're making to have much legitimacy. Nor do I see the point about "blood supply," because the question isn't whether cells have a blood supply (although they start out with one in the womb, the hyaloid artery), it's whether they're getting all the nutrients that blood would have delivered to them. Blood is a means, not an end. It's also a red herring (no pun intended) in your argument -- cells don't need blood, they need the two-transport function that blood, among other possible mechanisms, embodies.

Second, I've been on public record since 1982 about my approach to GR and SR. My comment about Regner involved consistency with his own stated principles (a legitimate approach in debate, to argue "ex hypothesi"). This does not constitute an endorsement of GR or SR on my part, it constitutes identification of a hole in another person's handling of his own preferred formalisms. Most GR and SR folks would not have made that assertion of Regner's, knowing better (on their own stated principles). This does not preclude a classical physics solution to the question, as I've made abundantly clear on too many occasions to enumerate. In short, everything I said was literally true: Regner was evidently unaware of his own camp's views on the centrifugal force question. The options are (1) he knew his camp's views but planned to conceal them to avoid giving away points, or (2) he honestly didn't know.  The second option makes the most sense, since he's been in all respects honest in his expositions. Where, in my identification of this anomaly, is grave doubt being cast in regard to Regner's response?

If this is confusing for those following the discussion, let's see if we can put it back together again (as I see it, admittedly).

Neville desired to contrast the transitory nature of the body with the presumed eternal nature of the spirit. He erects the first point with an assertion that "in seven years your body will not contain a single cell that you do now." If so, there may well be a contrast. But if there's a factual error in the first premise, the point of contrast is vitiated. I identified precisely such a factual error, so the argument, on Neville's own stated principles, is traversed.

In the case of Regner, he, an exponent of mainstream science (and thus of SR and GR, etc.) asserts something that is untrue even on his own stated principles, which I pointed out (about simultaneously with Dr. Sungenis's post to the same effect, although we'd use different sources from the GR literature to establish the same point, demonstrating its ubiquity). My intention is to identify a flaw in the argument, in this case a factual flaw in application of Regner's own principles. A frontal attack on GR or SR would have been a non sequitur at that point, nor would it serve to answer the erroneous statement Regner made. 

In short, I'd summarize the essence of my reply to both assertions in three words: do your homework.

But Neville seeks to turn the flank of my brief exchanges and assert that since I controverted Regner by appeal to Regner's own camp, nothing I've said is above grave doubt. Of course, that means any argument ex hypothesi would instantly condemn the protagonist for applying that form of logic.  The problem with this stance is that the foundation of all logic is the construct known as modus ponens: "If A, then B. A, therefore B." But you'd be disallowed from the first "If" under Neville's rules of engagement -- your argument would be subject to grave doubt because you've admitted into argument something illegitimate, even if you have a strategic reason for doing so. You could never question a person's consistency with his own principles, meaning hypocrisy gets a free pass. There seems to be a lot of baby being thrown out with whatever bath water Neville thinks needs to be thrown out. 

However, this all sounds like making a mountain out of a molehill to me. Or, perhaps more tragically, it answers more closely to some unproductive sabre rattling. Perhaps on my part too. I just don't think it's too much to ask for us to try for consistency, even if we don't always reach it. Otherwise, we could never know where another person stands if he's capricious in applying his own principles.

Martin














On Mar 18, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Neville Jones wrote:

In blue:

-----Original Message-----
From: mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:39:35 -0500

On Mar 17, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Neville Jones wrote:

Our cells are constantly being replaced, such that it has been estimated that in 7 years time you will not contain a single cell that you do now. I.e., your physical body has been rebuilt.


This statement is patently false, casting additional grave doubt on everything else being asserted. The inside of the crystalline lens of the human eye contains the original embryonic cells from the womb; additional laminae are built over them, analogous to tree rings. Cataracts occur when the regularity of this lamination process is disrupted, or particulate scattering domains are introduced into the lens to cause Mie scattering. In any event, the statement that "in 7 years time you will not contain a single cell that you do now" is completely wrong. The oldest cells in your body are as old you as you are -- and you're looking through them as you're reading this email.

Are these "cells," in the same way as other cells of the human body are cells? Do they need an oxygen supply? Are are they similar, in a manner of speaking, to fingernail and toenail "cells"? In fact, you refer to this as a lamination process. If you decide never to cut your hair, then does your hair contain "cells" that are from birth and are being fed through a blood supply?

Your statement about "casting grave doubt on everything else being asserted" is patently wrong. For example, in another post you claim that you were, "very surprised that [Regner] hadn't encountered the general relativity exposition of the centrifugal force undertaken with the earth at rest. Still, on first principles, one would have thought the error avoidable simply by taking general covariance seriously. Even if one was unaware of why the Schwarzchild solution applied to the local spacetime wouldn't apply, mere cognizance of general covariance should have given Regner pause. This was an uncharacteristic oversight on his part -- he's usually so very careful in applying physics to the question at hand." There is ample cause to suspect that both SR and GR are based upon at least one false premise each, in which case, and by your own reasoning, "grave doubt [would be cast] on everything else [you have] asserted."

Regards,

Neville.


Martin



--------
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line  (281) 825-4507 direct line  (281) 825-4599 fax   (512) 422-4919 cell

3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Preview
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2008