On 09/22/2012 08:39 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 09/22/2012 08:29 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to
confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light
would "sink" or "shorten" into the direction of movement. That is,
*longitudinally*.
Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least,
completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the
Universe were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one.
Corolarium 2: That "sink" or "shortening" must imply something.
Conservation of energy, remember?
Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are
we ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell
games and dumb?
In other words: There's more to it than what's usually stated. Modern
science evades the question by modeling only the visible part of the
equation, i.e. the material aspect. *There's, without any doubt at
all, an invisible or spiritual aspect to all of it.* Just don't try to
imagine it, visualize it, or model it in material terms. But, for
God's sake: *don't forget about it*. Because you, your very self, is
at the stake.
'Are' is probably more appropriate above, not 'is'.
In the very same way as the material world has complex, detailed, and
strict rules, the spiritual world has them, too. They are different. You
can spend your whole life just trying to understand some of it. As a
first, you should just stop pretending they don't exist, i.e. suspension
of disbelief. And secondly, that they are similar to those of the
material world.
Abstraction is another common cause of confusion: abstraction can't
never be the spiritual, but just, at best, a distilled, or dissected,
that is, still (i.e. dead) *image* of it.
