Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJ Lifestyle

Ronald R. Cherry

“Ronald R. Cherry, MD, is a board-certified specialist in lung disease and sleep disorders who is in the full-time practice of medicine in Sweetwater, Tennessee. Dr. Cherry also stays busy raising a family, reading, hiking, and fishing. Dr. Cherry is not involved in politics, but he has come to the conclusion that all liberty-loving Americans must educate themselves on the principles and values that were held by our Founding Fathers, and that to maintain our freedom each generation of Americans will be required to make sacrifices and emulate the founding generation of Americans.”
Follow Ronald R.:

Is the Universe Spinning?

Thursday, December 19th, 2013 - by Ronald R. Cherry

shutterstock_157290917

Dark matter and the so-called dark energy of our universe can be accounted for by an alternative cosmological theory. We normally think of the Big Bang as a violently expanding universe where all the mass was flung out centrifugally in a bomb-like explosion leaving essentially nothing at the center. The presence of dark energy has been proposed in this now standard cosmology since observations indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. An alternative theory is that the Big Bang was a violent rotational expansion of matter flung off from a rotating ultra-massive black hole at its center, with the universe in an expanding (but eventually stable) rotation around the remaining dark matter (the remaining ultra-massive black hole) at the center of the universe. Under this cosmology the universe would still be expanding from the center, but decelerating centrifugally (via centripetally opposing gravitational force) into a final average orbital radius, while maintaining fixed radial acceleration (average angular velocity squared divided by average radius) and fixed angular momentum (average angular velocity times average radius times mass). Physicists in India have proposed such a theory for the Big Bang.

“One possible explanation as to how all objects acquired the property of spin could be cosmological models which also contain a term involving the primordial spin of the universe. In homogenous and isotropic models, universe with matter may not only expand but also rotate… Recent work on the study of thousands of spiral galaxies imaged by Sloan Digital Sky Survey does in fact indicate that the universe could be spinning… Here we have cosmological model involving the primordial rotation of the universe, invoked to understand the origin of the rotation or spin of objects over a wide range of masses from stars to galaxies… a cosmological model with a large scale primordial rotation term of this order can give an accelerating universe mimicking [via radial acceleration] a dark energy term [for the commonly accepted centrifugally  accelerating universe].”  C Sivaram and Kenath Arun

Dark energy remains a theory since no one has observed it, or an effect from it, which cannot be accounted for by a better explanation. Dark energy need not be invoked in the case of rotational cosmology since the initial energy required for rotational expansion would be all that is necessary to explain a presently expanding universe in radial (orbital) acceleration around an ultra-massive black hole at its center. In addition to solving the problem of dark matter and dark energy, rotational cosmology also provides us with a picture of the universe which matches the observable rotation of planets in our own solar system, and the rotation of observable spiral galaxies, some or all of which may orbit super-massive black holes at their center.

*****

image courtesy shutterstock /  jupeart

Read bullet | 10 Comments »

The Borg Vs. The People

Thursday, November 21st, 2013 - by Ronald R. Cherry

Drones_FC2

Government power derives from collectivization of the people’s property. When government – a small group of other people after all – owns or controls vast amounts of the people’s property it is thereby empowered – like the Borg – to employ others to carry out its predictably self-serving desires – where resistance is supposedly futile. Flush with the people’s property, and thereby their power, collectivist government can also redistribute property to a government-dependent so-called proletariat class in return for votes – while at the same time expropriating property from the laboring middle class – the social engineering of economic class struggle. Total collectivization of property into the hands of a Marxist-type government leads to total government power; thus Karl Marx, in Orwellian fashion, advocated the abolition of private property, not for “social justice,” but as a means to concentrate property, and thereby power, into the hands of a few.

“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.”  George Orwell – 1984 

Read bullet | 33 Comments »

Equal Rights and Sacred Liberty

Wednesday, November 13th, 2013 - by Ronald R. Cherry

ThomasJeffersonStateRoomPortrait (1)

Rightful human liberty is a function of man’s equal natural human rights.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson

Human liberty, having been endowed to all of us equally by our Creator, is a part of our human nature; our sacred right to liberty is therefore unalienable and only limited by the equal rights of others. Equal human rights and equality before law was the argument of the American Revolution expressed by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. Unequal human rights are a function of unequal human value, whereas equal human rights are a function of equal human value. Unequal human value is a function of measurable human value, whereas equal human value is a function of infinite human value. Measurable human value is a derivation of man evolved devoid of God’s image, whereas infinite human value is a derivation of man created in the image of God. Thus, as Thomas Jefferson said, liberty is the gift of God – because rightful human liberty is a function of equal human rights derived from infinite God-given human value.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson

If man is made in the image of God; then, since God lives and gave life to man, each individual naturally possesses a sacred unalienable right to life and self-defense. If man is made in the image of God; then, since God is free, each individual naturally possesses a sacred unalienable right to liberty – man is born free. If man is made in the image of God; then, since God is the Great Creator, each individual naturally possesses a sacred unalienable right to his/her own creativity – a natural right to property created through individual labor – the natural right of “each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor”a sacred unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

Read bullet | Comments »

What is Blind Paranoia and Why is it So Dangerous?

Monday, September 16th, 2013 - by Ronald R. Cherry

shutterstock_95493196

Paranoia is currently defined in most dictionaries as an irrational suspicion of others. A more complete definition of paranoia would be the presence in one’s mind of any persistent irrational belief – any persistent belief that something is true when it is false – or any persistent belief that something is false when it is true. When a person believes something to be true (or false), and the belief is supported by observation and reason, then the belief is not paranoia. Rational belief is based on truth whereas paranoia is based on untruth. To prove paranoia one must first prove that the belief in question is untrue.

Most people exclusively think of paranoia as “seeing” a threat that isn’t really there – this is suspicious paranoia – it’s the man who irrationally believes “someone is out to get me” when it is not true. There is however another type of paranoia – another type of irrational belief – which is intellectual blindness or blind paranoia. Those who suffer from blind paranoia can’t see a threat that really is there – it’s the man who believes someone is not out to get him when in truth someone is out to get him. Thus the blind fool is as paranoid as the suspicious fool.

Paranoia should be equated to any persistent irrational belief, so a definition of paranoia based only on irrational suspicion is incomplete since it only addresses a subset of irrational belief. It is self-evident that there are only two possible types of irrational belief – one where a person perceives something that isn’t there – and the other where a person can’t or won’t perceive something that is there. The first instance can be rightly called suspicious paranoia and the later blind paranoia (or denial), but it doesn’t really matter which name one uses as long as one understands the concept of irrational belief which, in the end, can only be expressed in these two opposite ways.

Read bullet | Comments »

Science, Reason, and Faith

Sunday, June 16th, 2013 - by Ronald R. Cherry

 shutterstock_127780394

Science is the process of determining the behavior of matter (the universe) using observation, testing (controlled observation), and reason; with reason defined as the ability to observe, comprehend and accept self-evident truth.

[Reason is] “the discovery of the certainty or probability of such propositions or truths, which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas, as it has got by the use of its natural faculties…” —  John Locke

Faith is any belief based on that which is unobservable and un-testable, which is to say any belief which is undiscoverable by science, which is to say any belief beyond the discovery of reason.

“Where revelation comes into its own is where reason cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith… that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being beyond the discovery of reason, are purely matters of faith; with which reason has nothing to do.” —  John Locke

Religion contains faith that an eternal God created matter (the universe) with a finite beginning at the Big Bang – a supernatural belief not based on direct observation of that which preceded creation. If the universe was not created by God, then where did it come from? We know from the law of conservation of energy that without outside force neither mass nor energy can create its self, nor can mass or energy be destroyed; the sum of mass and energy is always constant in any closed system including the universe it’s self. Mass can be converted into energy, and visa-versa, so mass and energy are limited to interchangeability (E = MC2), but according to the law of conservation of energy only nothing can come from nothing. According to the most fundamental law of science a self-created universe is an un-scientific belief – an irrational belief.

It is self-evident that if the universe was not created by God, and since it did not create its self, and since it cannot be destroyed, it must be eternal in time, both in the past and in the future – possibly an infinite series of Big Bangs – or a universe in rotation around an eternally old ultra-massive black hole at its center. The most basic law of science tells us that outside power is a requirement for the creation of nature’s mass and energy, so we are left with either an eternal un-created God with no beginning and no end who created our finite universe with a Big Bang (religion), or we have an eternal un-created universe with no beginning and no end (atheism).

Since faith is any belief based on that which is unobservable, such as belief in God, and since no one was or could be present to observe the beginning of a Universe with no beginning, belief in an eternal un-created universe (atheism) is based on faith. Here we have the irreducible basis for both religious and atheist belief. Adherence to the law of conservation of energy does not require us to choose one belief over the other – it simply requires that one must be true and one false. Both religion and atheism represent leaps of faith equal in magnitude but opposite in direction – two mutually exclusive beliefs – each beyond the discovery of reason.

Read bullet | 5 Comments »