Neft Floor

Summary Overview

In Late February, 2015, we had a neft pipe run from our neft tank (outside the front of the house, to the center of the house. It was then to go at a right angle across the room and down into the basement.

Prior to that, the workers broke the pipe twice - at one point the fire department had to be called because our back yard was flooded with neft.

Around May of 2015, it was noticed that the grout between the tiles against the wall where the pipe went at a 90-degree angle was darkening and smelling of neft. the Kablan, opened the floor, and supposedly fixed the problem.

In March of 2016, prior to the end of the period where the final payment for the work was due, we noticed that a 4-x-5 tile area (for a total of 20 tiles) had all of the grout darken. It smelled.

We called back the Kablan, he lifted up a tile, brought a gas man to fix the leak, cleaned up a small amount of sand, and left. It was promised that they wold return and correct the problem further.

I assumed that it meant opening up the floor, removing all of the neft-saturated sand, cleaning it up, and replacing the tiles, and that they would do this at their own cost since this was neft-error-#4 on their part.

And here is what we were left with, and the stench of neft filled the main floor of the house:

I was told by G. that there was no plan to fo anything further, and to let it "air out for a few days".

In Opposition

In this photo, the red circle near the wall is where the first repair took place. The white circle in the sand-hole is where the Arab Kablan and his "expert" corrected the second leak. The lettered tiles are indicated for immediate removal:

I called a second construction person to give me his input. The moment he walked in the door, he was hit with the smell of gas. He looked at the hole, and told me that it was dangerous. Also, the sand, because it is absorbent, will not let the neft evaporate, and living with all of that neft under the floor is dangerous.

I called a gas expert of my own to check the pressure of the pipe and to ensure that there are no other breaks and that the repairs are good. If everything is fine, I will have peace of mind. If not, then I will send the bill for his work to G.

To do that, he will need to remove the tiles above, marked "A" and "B" to have a clear view from the bend and past the most recent repair.

As it stands now, all of the tiles within the red lines will need to be removed, all of the sand removed, the area treated, new sand put in, and tiles and grout applied. If the gas man indicates less or more tiles to be removed, then that will be the case.

I am hoping that "G" will do the right thing.

Pictures from our Shipputz

For the story behind these pictures (which is only a tiny portion of the entire project that they did), click here:

Here is the entrance to the bathroom. I added three dark lines over the grout to that you could see that, for some crazy reason, they decided that the bathroom floor did not need to line up with the rest of the floor that they were laying at the same time,

Also notice the door. That is as far as it will open, because they chose to lay tile on top of the old tile. "Don't worry about it", I was told. You won't notice any difference. Right...

There was also a smell coming from there. It was not until I paid someone to tear it up that we discovered the problem: something under the tiles, probably the adhesive, smelled horrible. Once the new person removed all of the old under-tile area, as well as the toilet, the smell went away.

Although it didn't help the tiles outside of the bathroom, where the neft (heating kerosene) was leaking under the floor in a pipe that they had installed. - this, after the THIRD time that they caused a neft leak. Notice the grout between the tiles is a darker color where the neft was soaking through, and light where it had not yet appeared.

Now how did their work affect the toilet?

In their first attempt, the toilet was leaning to the left.

What, they thought I wouldn't notice?!

When I complained, they straightened it out, but that night, water came all over the floor because the pipe was too short! So they fixed it again, and water only dribbled. Then they finally jerry-rigged a fix using non-standard connectors to give me this:

When I showed this to a plumber, he shook his head telling me that I would have a lot of problems with this down the road. (I paid someone else to rip all of this out). Think of it: fecal matter passing through a passage with pockets where it can be trapped. Perhaps the smell was coming from there. It's hard to say. Once the old work was removed, the room smelled fine.

And this closeup of one of the corners (they are all about as good) will give you an idea of the quality of their work:

Notice, by the way, the poor job of finishing the tiles around it. Here is a closeup of the tank area:

I lost count how many times they had to redo the grout. The kitchen area was done 2-3 times and the bathroom was done a couple of times. First because of bad color, then because of missing areas, then because of too much grout, and also because it would crack after a few weeks, like this:

Of course, their finishing around the front of the toilet door wasn't any better:

When I complained: "Don't worry about it. We'll fix that". This is after the second time they "fixed it".

The light switch inside the bathroom, but the frame that they added to hide the ragged tile cutting. Notice that there are two colors of grout. "Don't worry about it". This is after the 3rd fix. Let's look at a few close-up's.

Poorly cut, Extra-heavy grout. Two colors of grout. Mess on the wood. Tile at odd angles. This is representative of the work. Oh, and this was after being fixed more than once.

Here is the light switch. A badly cut-out "square" (they cannot seem to measure well and hope that nobody will notice) and some incredibly hard adhesive that I cannot get off the switch. When I complained, "Don't worry about it. We'll clean that all up and you won't notice that corner." Right.

I forced them to replace one tile that was so badly misshapen, and here was the result:

 No, that isn't mold. That's the color of the grout, badly applied. When I complained, "Don't worry. It will get lighter when it dries". They lied. And, of course, the gap between those tiles, due to the lack of spacers, is bigger than the ones above it.

As for the door frame itself, let's just say that they aren't known for paining in a straight line, or without it dripping. When I complained, "Don't worry about it. It will all be cleaned up:. Uh-huh.

And her is the other side of the door. Just as bad. They just do these things and think that nobody will notice. They just didn't care.

Another door that they painted badly a few feet away ended up peeling a few months later:

Now what about cutting tiles to fit?

Here is the lower part of the bathroom door. They don't seem to be able to cut odd shapes (or straight lines).

Missing grout and mess on the wood. "Don't worry..." etc.

Summary:

These guys cannot paint, they cannot do plumbing, the cannot tile. All of which spells disaster when you are having your bathroom redone!

What is galling is that I still owe these guys 7,000 shekels (an agreement - hold back 7,000 shekels for 1 year and then give it up) when I have to pay more than that to redo this small segment of their work. They are unwilling to forego that and demand that I give them a 4th or 5th chance.

Warning: Stay as far away as you can from them!

The Saga of the "Shipputz From Hell"

"Shipputz" is another word for modifying the home in some way that causes one to hope for the best.

I know we did!

We hired "G" to handle all of the affairs.

We had an interior designer and an architect prepare the renderings. We selected and paid for the supplies.

And then the problems began.

Neft

We use a Neft heater (kerosene) with a tank outside of our front door and a pipe that ran through the salon and into the basement where the fire/heater was located.

They cut/broke that pipe in three separate occasions.

In the first occasion, they cut the pipe and went home for the day without telling us that the pipe was cut. It was very cold, so I turned on the neft and, after a minute, realized that it was pouring into our house. I turned it off and complained to "G". I was told not to worry about it.

The second time was so bad that our entire back yard was soaked with kerosene. We had to call the fire department to examine and then cover the back yard with an absorbent.

"M" did not believe it was his fault. After some convincing they agreed that it was "M"'s fault and would pay for the replacement of just the amount of kerosene that was lost, because "anything more wold have been unfair". "M" did pay to correct the stench that filtered into the neighbor's home as a result of the neft spill.

The police came by because of the fire department report, asking me if I think that this damage was intentional. I said, "No, they are just incompetent".

The third time was when we noticed the neft smell did not go away and there was a stain under out new tiling (the grout). I complained and "M" saw it and took care of it, being obviously embarrassed by the incompetence of his workers.

[update]

Months later, I was noticing a smell in the house when I would come into the living room from outside. Prior to Passover, I pulled up the carpet and a large area of grout was dark. Putting my nose to the grout, it smelled of neft.

Apparently, the third time of fixing it was not fixed, and a small leak still existed under the floor. I sent an SMS to "G" who told me that he and his men would come the next day and look at it. In the meantime, I have turned off the neft from the tank outside, but whatever is in the pipe will still drain out.

Tiling

The tiles had to be redone several times to get to the point of being mediocre. A level was obviously not used, and in most cases, spacers were avoided, perhaps as a cost savings, and the inconsistent spacing between tiles was apparent. Some tiles stuck out from the wall more than others. Different colored grout was used rather than one color, grout that would crack after a few weeks, and the cutting of the tiles were ragged.

They had to redo it over, and over, until I finally gave in. They changed the grout color in the kitchen so that the crookedness and bad placement of tiles would not be so obvious. They put a wider frame around the door to try and hist the ragged tile cuttings.

The bathroom smelled, and they could never isolate the problem. I hired someone else (that they would not pay for) to discover that they had let some of the toilet pipe pour beneath the tiles (sewage) and simply left it there!

They laid the floor tile throughout the entire area, including the bathroom. For some reason, they decided to not have the straight line of the tiles match those of the bathroom. I complained. "It has to be that way" I was told by "G" and"M". (I have since hired someone else to did it the correct way, showing that it did not have to be that way).

Bay Window

The widths of the frames were different sizes, and I complained and they redid it and redid it. The plan called for the seating area in front of the window to have a lid that would open. For some reason they poured their excess cement in that area, eliminating that as a possibility. A number of times I heard "Uh Oh".

The angles in front of the bay window are all different as well as the lengths of the sides. I was told that there was nothing more that they could do without tearing out everything. Apparently they did not know how to measure. And when trying to find someone to cut a cushion for that area, one person told me that there were too many odd angles to work with.

Sinks

I had ordered a glass sink and nice faucets to be installed. They ruined the glass sink. "M" brought the sink to a villager to paint the ruined area which only made it look worse and agreed to pay for a new one. The two faucets in the kitchen came with instructions, which they could not (or chose not to) read. They spent hours trying to get the faucets to work until I called in a plumber who corrected one of their errors in 5 minutes. He instructed them how to correct the other sink and had to leave. They did not follow his instructions and spent more time failing. (My son in-law came to visit and fixed it in a few minutes. By the way, he is NOT a plumber!)

As for the hand washing sink, THAT they spent hours trying to install. Besides ruining the sink, they also drilled the wrong size hole into the marble base, causing the entire thing to leak.Then they tried to attach the water pipe to the sink. 

First, they cut the wrong pipe, and after they left, when I turned on the water in the sink in the kitchen, the water near the hand-washing basin poured all over the floor. "M" came and fixed that. Of course, after he did, then the water that ran outside of our house for watering the garden no longer flowed. So "M" came back to fix that. 

And of course, the hand-washing sink leaked and leaked. They spent several days and tried several times until I got fed up and called a plumber who laughed when he saw what they had done, ripped it all out, and in under an hour we had a solution.

Of course, I could not use the hardware that came with the sink because they cut the wrong sized hole. So I had to accept a cheaper looking solution.

The marble shelf under the sink was glued to a nasty looking piece of metal (sharp), to hold it up. They used some permanent adhesive and could not remove it. I was told that they would give it a try and "don't worry about it". It remained after they had left.

Front of the house

Of course, there wasn't much that was done to the front of the house except moving the front door forward about a meter or so.

They piled all of their cement and pain on the outdoor tiled patio. The result is that 75% of the front area is now white, while a small section has the original tile coloring. They got pain on the tiles as well. Pain on the front fence. I am not sure what it is that is all over the wooden Pergola. 

I told them to clean that all up. "Don't worry about it " "G" told me, "They will clean everything up."

For an extra amount of money, they would repaint the front fence. They painted half of it because they ran out of paint. The rest of the front is still a mess.

When moving the light that was at the front of the house to be beside the door, they left the wire hanging outside. I complained. "Don't worry about it"G" said. You won't see it in the end.

They covered the wire with a plastic tube and glued it to the corner. I complained. "Don't worry about it, we'll move it."

They never did.

Odds and Ends

 That's not even the half of all of the disasters. There was practically not a single thing that they did not have to redo. And of what they redid, much of it was still unacceptable, and some of it I just gave in. You can only argue for so long.

When "M" was paid, we were told to hold back 7,000 shekels for 1 year. After that, he would receive that final amount. It was to encourage him to return and correct any problems.

But his crew was incompetent. They could not tile. They could not paint (they had to redo the paint job several times), They could not grout. They could not make a right angle or a straight line to save their lives. And they made messes that remain today.

So I hired someone to correct their messes.

When I told "G", he said that I still needed to pay the 7,000 shekels in the end. "It would not be fair to "M".

Fair to "M"?

"G" told me that I needed to let "M" and his men back into the house to make things right.

I explained to "G" that they were incapable of doing anything right. And I demanded that they forego the 7,000 shekels since it was going to cost me more than that to undo their problems.

"G" told me that he spoke to a Rabbi and told me that I would lose the case in a Beit Din (religious court) - as if I planned to take it to a religious court! (It was between a Jew and an Arab).

And so, I told "G" that I was done with him and "M". And that he best not advertise on social media, lest I make their incompetence public.

If you are reading this, then "G" chose to ignore that.

If you want to see the pictures of their work, click here

Why Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Supported by the Religious Jews

While campaigning in 2015, Naftali Bennett of the Bayit Yehudi party was asked if he would support legislation for same-sex marriage. His response was:

"It's no secret that I wear a kippa...Judaism doesn't recognize gay marriage, just as we don't recognize meat an milk together as kosher, and nothing will change it."

 To be fair, this is a political hot potato. After all, it is impossible to form a government without including the religious parties, and they would outright reject any attempt to permit two people of the same gender to get married.

But why is that?

The typical response is that the Bible defines marriage and that it opposes homosexuality, and therefore, same-sex marriage would be an abomination.

But is that true?

The Bible defines marriage as between a man and as many women as he can buy, support, and impregnate. Without pregnancy there can be no marriage, for there can be no family, and the Sages interpret this to mean that if a woman who was purchased cannot get pregnant, then she can be returned without penalty. After all, that was what she was purchased for.

And yet, people will still point to the Biblical model without ever really looking at it themselves.

The Rabbis have redefined this, limiting a man to only one wife (with a possibility of a second in only rare occasions - a process that is extremely difficult to enact). They also permit marriages between elderly (infertile) couples, and the ability of women to own property.

The Rabbis redefined the position of women in society, permitting them to acquire property of their own. In a religious divorce, a woman may actually be able to retain the house - something that would have been unthinkable 2,000 years ago.

So we do have Rabbinical adjustments to who can get married, and the manner that it expresses itself.

With the exception of an extreme segments in society, most religious Jews do not see their marriage as the act of a man buying a woman as his property for the purpose of producing offspring.Most Rabbis will permit the marrying a couple who will never have children (perhaps they are too old or infertile). These are considered valid marriages, where sexuality and fertility are excluded from the equation.

Keep in mind that sexuality and fertility are part of the original definition, along with defining women as property with no rights of ownership while the men have the ability to purchase hundreds of brides if he could afford it. And with the exception of some odd segments, virtually nobody else holds this view in the 21st century.

So if you exclude sexuality and fertility from the modern discussion, then why ire people arguing about same-sex marriage, other than out of fear (phobia)?

Marriage is the legal contract between two people and the state which recognizes them as a family unit with all of the legal rights that go along with that. It does not dictate that they are sexually active (that is part of the old definition), nor does it define their ability to produce children (again, that is part of the old definition), but it defines them as family - a legal recognition of their commitment as a unit, and equal partners without one being the master over the other.

If the thought that two people, behind closed doors might be doing something that you find distasteful, such as, eating a BLT sandwich or a cheeseburger, then fine. But they are going to eat that forbidden meal and your feelings about it do not apply. And we do not forbid people from marrying on the basis that they might consume such sinful foods in private.

So if one says "I am religious, and therefore I am against same sex marriage", it is really a non-sequitur. One does not imply the other. If you are saying "I hold to the original meaning of the Bible, where marriage is the process of a man, as master, can buy as many wives as he can support for the purpose of procreation", then you certainly have an argument there. If you say, "I hold that marriage is the contract between two committed individuals and the state, which defines their equal partnership as a family unit", then welcome to the 21st century, where same-sex marriages should not be discriminated against by the so-called "religious" faction of society.

In pointing to your head covering and saying "Judaism doesn't recognize gay marriage", you are not declaring yourself as religious, but as an ideologue and as dogmatic, holding onto definitions that have been discarded by most (owned brides, polygamy, fertility, sexuality) out of fear, and not reason. And by holding onto those views, you push away a large segment of society, a society that may be even more religious than you.

Why I Don't Examine the Dirty Laundry...

It was laundry day today.

There were 4 loads. I left the white load for last.

I just dump the stuff in, add detergent and softener (and bleach for the whites), set the dials, and let it run.

And no, I never examine the pockets of clothing or stick my hands to examine what might be in the folds. If you are lucky, and I happen to feel a watch or a phone poking at me, I will check. But if it isn't making itself known, I am not putting my hand down in there.

I have had some nasty experiences in the past, so I just dump and run.

Now, someone had left a sealed plastic back of extremely filthy white socks by the washing machine.

When I opened the bag, I got a whiff and nearly gagged. The stuff was really, REALLY, rancid.

So I dumped it in, tossed a white towel on top and a sheet or two, and made the detergent extra strong, with extra bleach, and an extra long cycle of hot water. (If things come out not-so-clean afterwards, I will sometimes soak them in bleach for awhile and give them a quick run-through, which usually does the trick. But that is only for clothes that have already been cleaned!)

So when the White was was done, I opened the top loader and started taking clothes out and transferring them to the laundry basket so that I can carry them outside to hang to dry.

And then I saw it.

At the bottom of the washing machine was a centipede that was longer than my forefinger and nearly as thick. It looked like this:

It apparently had not survived the ordeal, although it was still intact. And while I pondered various sinister plots concerning the use of its corpse, I thought better of it and just dropped it into the trash.

And THAT, my dear friends, is exactly why I never put my hands into clothes to search for the unknown!

The "Situation" - A Primer

In the current state of affairs where Israel is at war with Hamas, several points have been brought up, both by supporters and detractors. A few of these need to be explained in a rational manner so that reasonable people can come to an informed view concerning "the situation", as it is normally referred to in Hebrew (המצב).

The points that I want to cover are the usual expressions:

• The Jewish People/Nation/Land
• Ancient Palestinian People.
• The Green Line
• Settlements

Most of these get some sort of gut-reaction from either side of the argument, so let's just touch on these for now. (I may expand further in the future).

The Jewish People/Nation/Land

It should be noted that religious (practicing and believing) Jews are a minority within Israel. A poll taken seven years ago shows that the majority of the Jews are either non-observant, non-believing, or anti-religious. While it was about 60% back then, today it is likely higher, based on trends. This means that the majority of the Jews in Israel do not hold that they have a right to live there because God said so, any more than English immigrants had a divine right to build, expand, and settle in North America and found their state.

While it is often touted that "there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel", that statement needs to be expanded. In reality, while there may have been some Jews at some point in history living there when no Jews would move there, the fact is, they most likely integrated with the small Arab presence that was dwelling there. In the Arab section of Hebron, some buildings have mezzuzot (Jewish article that is put upon the doorpost) that would seem to indicate the assimilation process. If you read the writings of Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi ("The Kuzari"), you will see that this assimilation into Arab culture (not to be confused with Muslim culture) was a big fear among Jewish leaders.

The founder of the modern state of Israel was Theodor Herzl.He was a a Jew and an atheist. He saw that while Jews in France (notable the Dreyfus Affair) were assimilated and non-observant, they were still hated to the point of sending an innocent to his death with the crowds chanting "kill the Jew, kill the Jew". So he formed the First Jewish Congress with the intent of finding a place where Jews could live together in peace and without fear from non-Jews (which hasn't worked out well). He preferred Uganda, but after his death, that idea fell apart and Israel was the place to go to.

The novel "Exodus" by Leon Uris gives a good overview of the "1st Aliyah" (the period of immigration that ended at the beginning of the 20th century, to be continued by the next wave) up until the founding of the state.

As Jews arrived, there was a cooperation among the Arabs who lived there. Most of Israel was not cultivated, but was the place of nomads. It was a lot of desert and a harsh of a place for most people to live. Mark Twain had visited during the summer when most of the nomadic people had traveled to better climates, and to him it appeared deserted. While that famous quote of his is often taken out of context to show it was nearly empty, it does reflect the harshness and the lack of permanence in the land.

The Jews settled where nobody else wanted to. That which was owner-less was built upon, and the better areas were sometimes purchased. (In the town where I live, Efrat, the land was purchased from the Arab family that owned it. This was before it became a capital offence to sell land to Jews, which came into effect the latter part of the 20th century). 

I want to emphasize "cooperation". The nomads did not care about some group of Jews who wanted to drain a malaria-infested swamp and build a town there. And there was an exchange of goods and services. It would have been impossible for those of the First Aliyah Jews to come and survive without the help from the neighbors.

Ancient Palestinian People

The Arabs who lived there did not call themselves "Palestinians". That was a term applied by a non-Arab source to them as a wink to the Biblical enemy of the Jews. But it is ironic that at the time that it was given, it was not the Arab residents who were the problem, but the Turks (Ottoman Empire). 

The number of Jews coming grew and grew and there was no secret that they wanted a State of Israel, a State of the Jews, also called a "Jewish State". As to who was a Jew, that definition was pretty loose. And that definition would become more loose after WWII.

From the other states nearby (Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and so forth), Arabs began immigrating into Israel as well. And so, like the Americans and the French, competition for who could settle the most land (as the USA and French did for Florida and Louisiana, for example). Think of it as a game of "Risk". If you could plop a shack on a spot of land, it was considered settled. Sometimes you had entire villages of empty buildings that were established specifically to lay claims. There were skirmishes, but nothing wide ranged or long lasting. So you had Arab immigrants (Yassar Arafat, of recent memory, for example, was from Egypt). 

For a collection of Arabs to claim that they stem from an ancient line of a Palestinian people is inaccurate. But to claim that they have a common bond and a settlement claim, that is certainly accurate. Unfortunately, that has been discarded for propaganda. In fact, they Arabs who had been settling the land hated the term "Palestinian" and when, offered a title of a state nearly 80 years ago, they rejected it. They considered themselves Syrian, and so forth, saying:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it". - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

This is but an overview, and since I have introduced the British, let's talk about "the Green Line".

The Green Line

In the 1920's the League of Nations drafted a legal document called "The British Mandate". With this, Great Britain was to oversee the politics of the area and maintain peace after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire that had been the reigning government for a very long time. At that time you had Jews of Israel wanting to serve the British army to aid them with the intent of acquiring a future state, and you had "Lawrence of Arabia" encouraging the Arabs to revolt and take the land for themselves.

Once you had the fall of the Ottoman empire, Britain was the residing army and police. To quell the occasional uprising by the Arabs or Jews, they would paint a sign on a building of one or the other, depending upon whom they were threatening, and stated that if one British subject was harmed in any way, that building would be bombed. It did not take too many examples for the residents to believe and behave. And, of course, the world was silent about this "collective punishment".

The problem got worse when, in 1922, the League of Nations declared:

Communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

The Arabs claimed that the land was theirs from this. The Jews staked their claim from this. And so, from this, a line was drawn on a map, defining which was to to be the land of the Arabs and which was to be the land of the Jews. (At this point, the Arabs still did not refer to themselves as Palestinians). Check out this map, and you will see that the Arab State was to get the lion's share of the land.

The green area, the original West Bank (75% of the land), was for the Arab State, and the red area (the remaining 25%), was for the Jewish State. 

And then, things went south, as politics often do. The French took over Syria, they declared the green area as no-man's land, and the League of Nations declared that the green area was to be separate from what is called Palestine, and so, the red area, the smaller portion was to be split, And so, a green marker was used to delineate this. And Jews who live to the west of the green line are said to be living "over the green line".

It should be noted that the Palestinians, under the leadership of Yassar Arafat tried to take back the green area that had since been taken over by Jordan ("Trans-Jordan"). Jordan had attempted to have the Egyptian Arafat and his people be absorbed into that area under the rule of Jordan, but his plans were for self-rule. In attempting to take it over, approximately 5,000 Palestinians were killed and the PLO returned to Israel while many Arabs chose to live in Jordan, where they reside in refugee camps to this day. It is interesting that the world was silent while thousands of Palestinians were killed by Jordanians and living in refugee camps, and still is.

Settlements

Of course, there is a lot of history there, but I just want to touch on a couple of other points. The first is "settlements". 

You often hear that the Jews have settlements. And you hear that the settlements are an obstacle to peace. 

That is a red herring. 

Here is the thing. If a line would be drawn on the map as to where the separating line would be, then if there is an Arab settlement in Israel, then those Arabs could keep their homes, and pay taxes to Israel and be an Israeli citizen if the choose. On the other hand, if there are Jews living where the Arabs would define their state, then they would have to leave. But in no case does the existence of a "settlement" by Arabs or Jews determine of the Jewish side or the Arab side will get it or not.

It is often said that the settlers stole the land. In many cases Jews purchased land from the Arabs. The fact that their leadership no longer recognizes such transactions as valid is irrelevant. In other cases, non-settled areas, such as the top of a rocky hill, had "hilltop youth" settle there. It was ownerless. Now, because of Israel's sensitivity to this, permits are now required and "illegal settlements" (those created without the legal paperwork, not settlements existing in areas where those opposed to Israel dismiss their existence as valid). Illegal settlements are destroyed. Both sides say that the Israeli government is playing favorites.

In 2007, after being pressured by the Bush White House, Ariel Sharon expelled the Jews from Gush Katif. In that area, which was taken from Egypt as part of an agreement at the end of the Sinai war, was where a large percentage of the country's produce was grown. That infrastructure was left, money was earmarked to train Palestinians to produce vegetables and learn hydroponics, and one group of investors were ready to fork over money to build a casino by the beach, since there are no casinos in Israel..

The Jews were evicted and lost their businesses and homes and how their exile occurred was a tragedy imposed by the Israeli government. To this day, many have not recovered. And what happened to the horticultural centers?

Fatah, the ruling body of the time, torched everything. Destroyed synagogues, homes, and businesses. They burnt it all, making it Jew-free. Military training camps were set up, and the casino idea fell apart from that. And then, Hamas ousted Fatah, and the leader of Fatah, Abbas, became a persona non grata, staying in Ramallah for his own safety.

And so, the terrorist group, Hamas, took the land given to Fatah by Israel, land that was never considered to be part of Palestine - an illegal settlement.

Summary

The current situation is not an ancient one. It has not existed for 2,000 years as some would say, nor even 200 years. It is not an ancient war, but one that is younger than the United States.

The Jews did not steal the land. Most Jews do not believe that it is their divine right to live there, but is their human right to live safely and among those who wish to live among them. Muslims and Christians also make up part of the country, and Arabs have a seat in the Kenesset (Congress). The Israeli Army is made up of not only Jews (believers and non-believers), but of Muslims and Christians as well. 

This is not a religious war from the point of view of Israel, but a war about survival. The Jews have a right to live. The Arabs have a right to live. Unfortunately, there is a radical element (not just Hamas, but Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood and others) that use the citizenry who are not aligned with any of them as pawns.

And, unfortunately, when Israel shoots a building full of weapons, and someone's son, daughter, mother, father, or whatever gets killed, you end up with people who were not part of the war becoming active participants. And so, if Jews get killed, Hamas wins. And if Arabs get killed, Hamas wins.

A couple of additional point that are often misused.

You will read that most of the people killed in Gaza are civilians.

Most of |Hamas are civilians. When a teenager takes a weapon and points it at an IDF soldier, he is a civilian. And this is not just the case of children. I prefer "non-combatant", which is not a term that you will ever see reported.

You will hear that Israel is shooting indiscriminately.

If you take the total number of shells, missiles, and drone shootings that have occurred from Israel, you must realize that they are incredibly bad at hitting their targets, taking more than one missile to kill one person, or that they are incredibly good at their job, and non-combatants are not their targets. And what you do not hear so much outside of Israel is the terror of the young who have to scramble out of their beds and get to a bomb shelter in less than a minute, or the funerals that follow. We have had too many in recent days.

You will also read that Israel is using disproportional force. And yet, while 100 and more missiles were flying into Israel every day since March, the world was silent. And when the population was in real danger and Israel could not take any more and shot back, the world went into an uproar. The number of people killed on one side versus the other is meaningless. If they had meaning, then the winner of any war should be considered evil, and the loser, good. 

So when you read a report, think on these things and remember that they lies often repeated do not make themselves truth. 

I may post another about this if questions arise. And I might not.

The Universe does NOT revolve around you

In the geocentrism vs the heliocentric view of our solar system, you will sometimes hear:

"The Universe is infinite, so the Earth IS the center of the Universe!"

Let's get one thing straight. In this weird debate, it is not about where is the position of the Earth in the Universe. This belief in a geocentric solar system has been going on for 3500 years or more - long before science ever conceived of the possibility of other galaxies, and before Hubble determined that the Universe was expanding equally in all places.

No. It is about believing that the sun travels around the Earth rather than the other way around.

Yes, where you are standing, you are in the center of the Universe, but the Universe does not revolve around you. Voyager II, which has left our solar system is also in the center of the Universe, and the Universe does not revolve around it. So, while it is interesting to conceive of an infinite number of centers within infinity, it is not addressing the question of the sun rotating around the Earth.

Because, if it were true that everything is in the center and that everything rotates around everything that is in the center, well, it would be impossible to do something useful, such as send the Rover to Mars, because we would never be able to calculate where it would be for that remote device to reach the surface.

So, no, being "the center" of infinity does not mean that everything revolves around the Earth anymore than everything revolved around Neptune, including us. All it means is that the Universe is a big place and it is difficult to measure.

Now, it is true, that using Relativity, that from the point of view of the astronauts on the International Space Station, the Earth is the center, simply because the ISS is in a geocentric orbit. And if a killer asteroid was in proximity to the Earth, we would use a geocentric targeting system because, from the point of view of the asteroid, the Earth is the center. But from the point of view of the Mars Rover, looking up towards the Earth, that relationship is not in place because Mars does not revolve around the Earth, and so, from it's heliocentric point of view, the Earth is just one more spheroid that is caught in the immense gravity of the Sun and is circling it in an elliptical orbit.

I can understand why many people want the Earth to not only be the center, but to have the entire Universe bow to and circle the Earth. After all, according to one geocentric-centered movie, to be the true center and have everything revolve around you makes you special, and science had caused so many things to no longer be special.

And so, all sorts of complicated reasons as to why the Sun revolves around the Earth must be true are tossed around. Some are more complicated than others.

Sometimes, the simple answer is the correct one. We live in a SOLAR system, and we are but one small planet that rotates around it.

The Kablan from Efrat...

In the town where I live, we communicate between one another using the GROUPS feature of Yahoo. You send an email, and every resident who is registered will receive it. It is a nice way to find out recommendations, get a ride, discover what is happening, and so forth.

Recently, several people have been posting how WONDERFUL a particular kablan (general handyman contractor) is. What most don't realize is that this kablan encourages (pushes) people to give him glowing testimonies. And if that were all of it, that would not be so bad. But the fact is, these testimonies are misleading (not intentionally by them), and that needs to be addressed.

In early March, we had a heavy period of rains. During that time, the roof of our house had a couple of small leaks. It was coming from the roof, into the attic, and dripping through the sheet rock ceiling of one of our bedrooms. I called the kablan (hereafter known as "K."), to fix those two small leaks.

Without going into the attic, he looked at the roof, and said that the problem was that the water was going down the sides of the walls and instead of going down a gutter area, it was going under the clay tiles of the roof, and the wood under there was not in good shape. So, for 5500 shekels, he would build a couple of concrete troughs for the water to fall into and redirect it, and would apply a waterproofing to them.

K.: "You gave me my first job in Efrat, so I do for you a special price. Anyone else, I charge 12,000 shekels. But you are my special customer. For you I only charge 5,500 shekels."

Warning signals should have gone off in my head. And yes, I had used him before. My step-son asked, why I used him again, since his backyard work was so shoddy. I suppose it was selective memory. I had hired K. to oversee the fixing of a disaster that another group had done in the back yard. It certainly looked better, even though it wasn't great. And I had hired him then because he needed the work.

And so his scheme to put in some sort of stronger gutter system sounded plausible. Yes, I should have been concerned how he came up with this "5,500 shekel" amount from nowhere. I should have also have question his avoidance to even peek into my attic and look at the two small holes. Maybe a small patch job there would have been useful. But he was the expert in these matters.

Or so I thought.

I discussed this with my neighbor, since we share the same roof, and we agreed that he would pay 1/2 of the cost (2,750 shekels) since a wall in his security room was getting wet. K. was emphatic that the neighbor was to pay half, and his special price was only because he was doing this for me.

After he began work, K. felt that the front of the roof needed the same work. I questioned that because we had no leaks coming from that slope, but only from the back slope. He convinced me that it would be the best thing to do, and I agreed. Since this would not be affecting the neighbor, I did not include him for this extra 5500 shekels. The bill was now 11,000 shekels.

K. then decided, on his own to do some things that we did not agree on. He added that cement to the peak of the roof, leaving a grey line across the top, and then he started painting the bricks of our house and the houses on either side, with this gooey white water resistant sealer. The picture below shows the mess that he was only beginning to make. That bright white section is not paint, but a sealer, sort of like what you might use around your bathtub or sink. And if you look to the peak, as a long line, the light grey that we never agreed to, standing out.

You can see the bright white area on the top of the lower roof. This is the trough that he made from concrete and decided to pain this goo from roof-to-roof.

And it gets better!

The house to the left is a different neighbor, who was not involved in this. (She came out of her house this morning and confronted K., who gave her some halfhearted excuse. I was in the house looking outside during this and will need to apologize to her for him ruining her house as well.) That stone edging on their roof, on the right side of it, is also covered in this goo. This goo can also be seen from the back. Buckets of it were brought in, and had I not intervened, our house, and those of the neighbors, would have looked like the "marshmallow man" lived there.

I had a "conversation" with K. outside, in public, where I shouted, using my training as an ex-sailor, in ways that he would understand that I was not happy. He tried to explain that water goes into stone and so the stones need to be covered. Of course, he didn't mention that hundreds of thousands of homes in Israel are made of the same stone. Dolomite (the form of "Jerusalem Stone" that is used for ornamental work, such as the outside of buildings, while having some degree of porousness, does not leak. If it did, then why are not all of the home in Israel covered in white goo?!

After half an hour of shouting at him, he agreed to remove the excess goo from my house and that of the neighbors.

In the meantime, he told the neighbor to our left, the one who also had a small leak, that he has a few tiles that were token, and asked if he wanted to replace them. The neighbor agreed, and was told that 19 tiles were cemented down and it would cost 2000 shekels. Later, when confronted, he admitted it was just a couple of used tiles, and still wanted 2000 shekels. After one more shouting match (not with the neighbor, since he is far more softer spoken than I am), K. relented. Please note that there was no real cost of labor or materials for him (the Arabs he brought in were for the entire day and it was leftover material), and that I had not yet paid him. 

I was waiting for this saga to end.

On the last day, my neighbor brought an expert to look at the roof, and the two of them went up. When they came down, K. had just arrived and was livid, since he realized what was going on - he had been caught in a lie and acted like the victim in this drama. He furiously told them to go, and that he was not going to work on my neighbor's house...ever! Not only had he been caught in lying, telling them that 19 tiles had been replaced, but what little was done was certainly not worth 2,000 shekels. Yes, he had been caught - charging three times or more as his "special price as a favor to my friend Eliyahu".  

Now, what about the goo?

Well, he tried electric sanders. I could have told him that it was folly to try that on that stuff. Then he asked for some matches and went outside. I looked up and they were trying a blow torch! While it did melt the goo, it also blackened the rock, and K. realized that wouldn't work either. I was waiting for him to recommend acid (dolomite would bubble and turn into CO2, but it might have been fun to watch him try!)

At least it doesn't look like this:

I told him to paint the peak of the roof the same color, clean off the windows of my solar panels that had concrete  residue on them, as well as any other mess, and to just get out. I would pay him all that I agreed to, but I wanted him out.

In the meantime, his workers, (unguarded Arabs) were going to other houses on our streets, offering to do work that may or may not be necessary for prices that, apparently, were far above the norm. A local fellow who does this for a living was approached, and after being told why he needs it and being given the price, refused.

So here I am, in my gooey house, wondering if, when the rains come in another 9 months or so, if those same two spots will go "drip...drip...drip...". I might as well buy a 15-shekel tube of white goo, a small tube, and seal the inside by myself, now that the rains are done. 

I had hoped that he would have said, "I messed up. Sorry. Just pay me (some lesser amount)". But there was no apology, and no reduction in what he accepted. And so, he greedily counted the fifty-five 200-shekel bills twice to make sure that they were all there. 

Even though I had hoped for something ethical, I was not surprised that nothing of the sort was forthcoming.

He did send me an e-mail several days later and offered to paint the goo a better color. Obviously, it would require that most of the house would be repainted. I didn't even ask how much, but simply told him that I will have someone else correct his work. I have added his email address to my spam filter.

[Update: K. did forward a message to me that said he could get a 95% match on the color and gave me a price. However, each individual stone that he ruined was cut more than 25 years ago and was textured. This means no stone is a single flat color. And so his claim of "95%" is just a number he made up (like so many things he does), and it would look only worse. Obviously, his offer to charge me to make his bad work look even worse did nothing to change my opinion of him.]

It should be noted that I spoke to the mother of my neighbor, and told her to tell her son that he need not pay me until he was 100% confident that this mess fixed his problem, and then, only the 2,750 that we initially agreed. If he sees that the problem still exists, then he need not pay me at all. (And if he has a problem with the mess, I will take less out of my embarrassment for the entire episode.)

My recommendation is this: if you see a recommendation for someone on the Efrat list, don't accept that as "gospel". Find out if it is the same work, find out what the price was, and then ask others. Because if someone can easily afford 11,000 shekels, he or won't think that 11,000 is too much, and might give a raving review. And maybe someone likes white goo splashed all over the outside walls because it gives a nice snowy feeling. Be careful. Be very, very, careful. And for your own sanity, PLEASE, make a contract listing exactly what the person is to do, and that they are forbidden to deviate from that. At all. EVER!

b'hatzlacha!

The word "Bible"

Since I have received a complaint about using the term "Bible" when speaking of various narratives within the Jewish text, I am posting here to elaborate for those who require more information.

First, the Jewish text, of the 5 books, are Bereshit (בראשית), Shemot (שמות), Vayikra (ויקרא), Bamidbar (במדבר), and Devarim (דברים). In the non-Hebrew world, these five books are also called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, respectively. Yes, even Jews will sometimes refer to them by their more common non-Hebrew names.

Collectively, they compose that which is called Torah. (תורה). Also, collectively, they are sometimes referred to as Chumash (חומש), from the Hebrew word for "5", and sometimes the long form is used.

Now there are other Hebrew books as well. You have the books of Navi'im (נביאים) or "Prophets" and Chatuvim (כתובים) or "Writings". 

So The words Torah and Navi'im, and Chatuvim make up the acronym "TaNaCh" (the "Ch" is a guttural sound, like the ending for the composer Bach.

So Jews will often refer to the entire collection as the Tanach. 

When you got to a hotel outside of Israel and see a free Bible waiting for you, it contains the Tanach in the front part, and the Christian texts that follow it. In the non-Jewish world, the Jewish part is often call the "Old Testament", as in something that was superseded, and the Christian part is called the "New Testament", as in something that has replaced the old. Sometimes the abbreviations "OT" and "NT" are used.

However, Jews typically find the term "Old Testament" insulting and will rarely ever use it. 

So what is that book called that combines the two?

In Hebrew it is a transliteration of the common term "Bible" (ביבל) or biblia (ביבליה) as a higher form variant. 

And so, when I speak of the narratives in the Jewish text, that are considered part of the Christian text, I will sometimes use the term "Bible" when I want to infer an inter-relationship, or "Scripture". Sometimes I will have "Scripture" be preceded by the religious adjective ("Jewish Scripture"). Sometimes I will omit the adjective when the reference is obvious, or use "Bible" when I want to address both religions.

Since Islam does not have one text that combines the Christian text with the Jewish one, "Bible" will never be used by me to refer to that faith, even though it may have connection to certain specific beliefs. It is not that I don't hold that Islam has a similar acceptance, but that it holds itself outside of the Biblical narrative, and does not provide a text that combines the other two (a sort of New-NEW-Testament Bible).

Finally, you will find that many Scriptural scholars who write in Hebrew will use ביבל (bible) or biblia (ביבליה) when referring to the joined texts or when referring to a core idea with a common point of view (as in the American expression "Judeo-Christian").

Granted, Judaism and Christianity have less in common than they do in common, but "Bible" is a valid expression and is used widely, and so, it is valid that I use it as well in the context that I do.

Hopefully this will clear up some confusion!

Why not Why?

In the current lack of discourse in the American political system, we hear "Why" being tossed about as though it is a meaningful or even a useful question. "Why did the Democrats...", "Why did Obama...", "Why are the Republicans...", and other such questions are tossed out there. A good example of this would be watching Glenn Beck, and count the number of time he uses "Why" in a single show.

"How" and "What" require useful responses, while "Why" will almost always result in made-up answers, or the person asking them is not really seeking an answer. "Why do liberals want to kill unborn babies?" is not really looking for an answer, but is a way to initiate a smear-fest. "Why does the Right have such a love affair with their guns?" is also not seeking any real answers, and is also a platform to bash the right.

Listen to children. They can "Why" you to death! And listen to your responses getting less and less based on reality. A child may ask:

"Why do cats purr?"

The truth is, we still don't know, but parents rarely say "I don't know". If we could transfer our consciousness into a cat's body and experience the reason, we could answer that, but we cannot, so any answer is just conjecture.

"How do cats purr?", or "What research has been done concerning their purring?" are far more interesting and require a truthful, objective, answer, than the listener's subjective one, which is probably not true.

Let us bring this down into an adult world.

In the American slug-fest over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a question "Why are some of Obama's crony's getting exemptions?" And people are getting all emotional over this "Why".

In this issue of the Washington Post it exposed that those making this "why" are doing so based on misinformation and their feelings about it. As such, people asking "Why" are not interested in an answer, but are using it to cry out "I feel that it is corrupt!". The "Why" is never the real question. Rather "What" or "How" are the real adult ways to question when one wants an answer. Because "Why" will often require that you have the ability to jump into the minds of the people who made that decision, with the belief that you can provide a truthful response. But you cannot.

Now, to ask the adult question: "What companies are exempt" and "How are companies exempt" require honest answers. And if you go to the federal web site, you will see that the real answers are available, meaning that "exempt" has been misused by those who love "Why", and you can see the details of a temporary delayed implementation of a specific point for a maximum of one year for those who would suffer by doing otherwise.

"What" and "How" require specific details that can be found and provided. "Why" goes to those who hold that what one feels, or one's subjective perception of something has any validity as a real answer.

The question put to your son, "Why did you hit your little brother?" will get you the kid's feelings, his thoughts, or perhaps an "I don't know", but you won't hear the truth.

The question, "Why did the U.S. economy take a nose-dive?" will not get an honest single answer either, while "How" and "What" requires a list of specific objective items to support the "How" and "What", while "Why" requires no evidence whatsoever, and might even bring forth another "Why" and another, in a never-ending cycle.

So the next time you hear some emotional rant, start counting the number of "Why" that comes out, and ask yourself "Is there a "What" or "How" that can address this?" And if there is not, then it's a childish expression that was not really asking anything. However, if there is a "How" or "What", then one can have an adult conversation that is looking for real answers.

Why not give it a try? ;)

Severed Hand, or Not?

In Ki Teitze (Devarim 25:11-12) we read:

"When there will be men fighting together, a man against his brother, and the wife of one gets close to rescue her husband from the hand that is striking him, and she extends her hand and grabs tightly his embarrassing place (genitals), you will cut off her hand- there shall not be pity in your eye."

Rashi quotes the Gemara (Bava Kamma 28a) which is a page about taking the law into your own hands, and using excessive force and when or not it is appropriate.

"Come and here: (Devarim 25:12) 'You will cut off her hand.' MAMON (financial). Does not this ruling apply even if she cannot do anything else to save [her husband]? No, [the punishment] only applies if she could have saved him some other way, and she is exempt from punishment. But if so, why does it say "and she extends her hand", rather than that of the beit din (court)? Could not this argument be made in a subsequent clause [by adding] she is treated like an officer of the court, and that she could not have saved him any other way - so she is exempt from punishment.

Now several things bother me about this Gemara.

1. The first word, "mamon", if removed, reads equally well.
2. Why quote "You will cut off her hand" rather than "If she extends her hand" unless "You will cut off her hand" was assumed, and the discussion goes on about "and she extends her hand".
3. At no point do we find any financial wording ("she will pay", etc.).
4. At no point does it question the use of "you shall sever". This is the only place in all of the Talmud that this sentence is quoted, and one would think that "Do not read it as..." or some such thing to clarify the source of thinking "you will sever means something else", even "Halacha l'mMoshe m'Sinai" is missing.
5. Payment is to compensate for a loss. At no point is a "loss" ever discussed, while in all other cases around it, loss or potential loss are discussed.
6. It appears that the discussion is how to lighten the punishment, based on her point of view that she had no choice.

So I am wondering if is it likely that the word "mamon" was an editorial insert because the idea of chopping off a woman's hand was unacceptable. If so, that certainly is a good thing!

It is something to ponder.

Objective Morality

Having working in nearly a dozen different computer languages over the past 40+ years, a couple that come to mind are Lisp and Prolog, which were both considered AI languages of their day. In using them, you would define parameters and let the program produce a result, determining the most effective pathway based on the parameters given. It was a completely different way of looking at a problem, but one that is worth noting because of a problem we have in defining Morality.

If I were to define the parameters for an Objective Morality (OM), we would have a linear model, where a "+" (good) is at the very end of the horizontal line, and a "-" (bad) is put at the opposite end, with a "0" (neutral) is placed right in the middle of it. We now need to define direction and magnitude. Let's start with magnitude.

The magnitude will be defined by the quantity of the effect multiplied by the duration, which will always be a whole number raised to the next integer value. If the number of people (quantity) affected is zero, or if the duration of the effect is zero, then there is no magnitude and the event will be treated as neutral. A repeated event will cause a linear addition of the magnitude, and the time form (seconds, hours, etc) will be based on the highest form in the addition.

Now for the direction, which you can visualize as an arrow sitting on top of the "0" in the middle of the line, will either be pointing to the left (bad), to the right (good), or straight up (neutral). We now need a measurement to cause this directional setting to occur. Using freedom/oppression as the general concept as applied in a great number of papers on Well-Being and related topics, I chose to use that as the general director.

For example, if a husband slaps his wife in the face for not bringing home any beer, that is considered oppressive. She has no freedom from pain, both emotional and physical. This occurs at least a couple of times a week, so we would double the magnitude of "bad". And it has been going on since he lost his job a year ago, which would extend the magnitude of 2*52 (duration) times 1 (quantity). Now if there are two children at home who see this happening, who have their freedom to feel security threatened, then we would triple the quantity, making this a very bad thing indeed.

In a real example, a girl was trying to learn to read, and a man came by and shot her in the face as an example to the other girls in the village, so that they should not be learning to read. The magnitude to the minus is quite long. When she is taken to another country, where a plastic surgeon restores her face, and she is brought back to a point where her physical and emotional oppression are eliminated, then the direction arrow sways to the other direction, as a good thing. She now can return to her village where she had become a symbol for freedom. If she does nothing more, it is neutral. But if she seeks to encourage freedom for others, to free girls from the oppression of the village bullies, then that is a good thing.

But we are basing this one freedom versus oppression.

This works fine until we do just one more thing - once we add religion into the mix, then the entire enterprise falls apart. If the holy text tells you that a man is free to hit his wife or that females learning to read is forbidden by God, then, according to those who give credence to such things, you cannot label it as bad.

My wife brought up an example that provides a minor expression of that.

If you are Jewish and you hand over your baby son to the mohel to be circumcised, is this good or bad? After all, the man will hand the child over to someone, who will make sure that if the child squirms, he will be kept in place while the mohel takes his knife, causes pain, daubs the bleeding point of flesh with a gauze, and puts a bit of cloth that was soaked into the baby's mouth to dull the pain.

Certainly, on our scale, the arrow would be pointing to the minus side, as bad, although the magnitude would not be so great unless there was a problem during the procedure or during the time that follows. But it is still bad, using this programming logic. But we cannot call it bad because God said that we have to do it, and once you apply religion to the mix, the formula falls apart, because religion overrules everything else.

So in the world, where there is religious violence, religious intolerance, and religious indifference, so long as we give "religion" the ability to overrule any logical application of what is right or wrong, then it is valid to say "who are you to apply your morals to another society"? This was true in the USA when it came to slavery, as Andrew Jackson held up the Bible and proclaimed that "God is on our side, for we follow His word!" From that view, slavery could not be judged as bad, because God told Moses that it was OK.

I bring this up because the faithful cannot say "without our book, there is no such thing as objective morality". As you can see, we can define an objective morality that is not associated with any holy text. However, our global problem is that we give all religions a free pass, resetting the arrow from "-" to some other direction, saying "wife beating in that culture is supported by the Koran, and so it isn't bad" or "slavery is approved by God, and so it isn't bad".

Religious morality is not objective morality. Is that good?

A Final Geocentric Wrap-Up

Here is the last email that I sent on the subject, and will most likely be the last thing I am going to say about it. One note before pasting it here: Saying that the sun goes around the Earth is no different than driving a car and saying that the car is still, but the Earth is spinning under you. Read further and see why some hold:

Dear Listmates,

There have been some nice points on this topic, and while an earlier post of mine somehow fell into that “black hole" we call the Internet, I thought it would be good to summarize the 5 items rather than just re-send it.

1)      RELATIVITY: The example given by Einstein was a train moving quickly and a person dropping a ball, and the person on the train sees it as falling straight down while the person outside, looking through the glass walls sees it curving. However, this comparison falls apart for the geocentrist because, like this example, we have two data collecting and reporting satellites, one approaching the edge of the SOLAR system (not GEO-system), and one that is nearly so, which, like the observer outside of the train, can validate that the view of an earth-centered SOLAR system is not what is going on in reality, even though it is a comfortable view for some non-scientists.

2)      TIME: Since the earth is still, to the geocentrist, and slanted at 23.5 degrees, according to science, the Earth will have no seasons to speak of (about every 6 hours it will change, which is the same as none at all) as the sun whizzes around the Earth every 24 hours.

3)      SPACE: If you hold the Earth as the center, and have the moon, Venus, Mercury, and the sun (pick whatever order suits you) whizzing around the Earth, the distance of the Earth from Mars will increase by about 800%, taking about 6 years to fly there from Earth, rather than the current REAL time of less than a year. I have seen very complicated models trying to set up the GEO system, but they all fail on keeping the current verified measured distances (confirmed by external crafts hurtling through space – the external observer with advanced measuring equipment).

4)      TRUE: I asked a week ago if someone could draw a picture of a GEO System (versus a Solar System) where time and space will match externally confirmed reality. If one can be made where the sun and all of the planets are the same size and the same distances from one another with the same orbiting speeds that have been externally verified, I am willing to accept that there is a plausibility (within religion and philosophy) that the GEO-System model has some sort of merit. Until then, I withhold that.

5)      FALSE: Some have said that just because something is unlikely, it doesn't make it untrue. It is more correct to say that, with theories, they express the greatest plausibility and possibility of truth until proven wrong, and then, they are not true at all. There are many examples of failed theories. With NON-theories, (such as Young-Earth-Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism, to name a few), they are considered false unless there is evidence to justify their consideration, and if they fail peer review, they fail and are false, not simply “less true”.

The difference between religion and science is that, with religion, you can interpret something in unique ways, and while it may not be accurate, it will have validity in its application. This is true in Midrash, for example, and that is a good thing.

In science, while there are areas where one speaks of plausibility, some things are more or less plausible, but there is no such thing as more or less true, just more or less plausible. For once it is disproved, it is false, in science (and that process may take a long time), while in religion, it remains. So it is incorrect to say that Geo-Centrism is “not AS true as heliocentrism”, but, rather, it a false concept of the universe that we long discarded once we invented the telescope that can be used on this world, as well as ones that hurtle among the vast reaches of our SOLAR system.

I don’t think that I can add anything else to the topic. I updated my blog to reflect this. I leave the rest to you.

UPDATE

The list manager responded with a few points. I will not post the long reply, but it comes down to this.

1) Quotes a paper that he never read. The paper is how you can use, in science, a Geocentric model for satellites that are close to the earth rather than a standard one, providing that adjustments are made. No argument there, but we were discussing planets that are not near the Earth, which the authors were not proposing.

2) He claims that the sun wobbles as it travels around the Earth, so there will still be seasons.

3) This answer was short, so I repeat it in full:

"And again there is a second motion of Mars, which matches the sun's (above) and a third order one around the sun."

Which made no sense in reference to how Mars would be incorrectly measured at a six year difference.

4) In requesting him to draw a map of his solar system that would have matching values of our existing reality, he wrote:

"But the distances and time won't be exactly the same -- relativity includes lorentz contractions of both."

 Which is saying that our measurement will only appear to lengthen, while ignoring that if a ship leaves the Earth and arrives on Mars 10 months later, which model is that reality representing?

5) Skipped it.

I had to finally quit that list. I can only deal with Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, and Geocentrists for only so long. Life is too short to try to convince the deluded.