Posted by: graemebird | April 8, 2010

## Proof That All Matter, Subject To The Force Of Gravity, Is Connected ….. In Just A Few Easy Steps.

Every proton and neutron in our galaxy is joined to every other. This is probably the case for the entirety of the visible universe. But its definitely the case galaxy-wide. In one sense there is no such thing as a “particle”. Not leastways a particle, that is subject to gravity. Since all such particles are connected, making one big whole. Its like when you are used to thinking of Europe, Asia, and Africa as three continents, then realising they are pretty much one land mass.

Not only is every proton and neutron in the galaxy joined to every other, this can be readily proved to any objective, rational person, in the space of a single short thread. If you can look at the problem with fresh eyes, I ought to be able to convince you.

A FEW EASY STEPS.

1. The first step is to realise that gravity is, for practical purposes, an instantaneous force. There is no traveling time for the force of gravity, as opposed to the phenomenon of light. Light takes about six minutes to travel from the sun to the planet Venus. About eight minutes from the sun to Earth. About four hours from the sun the Neptune. Being instantaneous would imply that gravity, were it the result of “gravitrons” or moving particles ….. this would imply that these moving particles moved far faster then the speed of light. With an instantaneous effect, we see that, for practical purposes gravity’s speed would be infinite.

In the six minutes that it takes for light to make it from the sun to Venus ….. Venus moves about 12, 600 hundred kilometres around its orbit. In the eight minutes that it takes for light to travel between the sun and the earth, the earth will have moved on about 5,400 kilometres. In the four hours that it takes for light to go from the Sun to Neptune …… Neptune will have moved on about 80 000 kilometres around its orbit. But the angle of the force that the sun exerts on Venus, Earth and Neptune is not dependent on where the sun WAS  ….. Where the sun WAS (in relation to each) six minutes ago, eight minutes ago and four hours ago respectively …… rather that force depends on where the sun is now. That is to say that the angle of the force of gravity depends objectively on where the objects are RIGHT NOW,  and it is not related to the sorts of propagation speeds required by light.

Under the assumption that we are talking about separate particles a calculation was made at how fast gravity would have to propagate. It turned out that gravity, given the (wrong) idea that the universe is made up of unattached particles, moves at no less then 20 billion times the speed of light. I’m not sure what the precise assumptions are for this calculation. Whether it takes into account all the galaxies in the known universe or whether it was made on the basis of our galaxy alone, or the largest of galaxies. But even on the basis of working matters out from a single galaxy perspective, we can be very sure that gravity would have to move a lot faster than the speed of light. Why would gravitrons move with that sort of speed? What would compel these particles to move in this way?

If the angle of the force of gravity was on the basis, not of where the two objects are, but on the basis of where they appear to be, the orbits of all the stars around the galaxy and all the planets around the stars, would quickly unravel. Venus would increase its orbit each year until it lost its orbit entirely. There would be choas as all orbits lengthened and then were lost.

2. The Second step consists of noting the idiotic notion of photons. To point out clearly to the person you are educating, just how very strange and implausible, is the notion that these photons themselves move at the speed of light.

Now photons don’t exist. Like so much about modern physics, they are a fairy story,  and merely the dogmatic postulate of a religion. Rather then any sort of real thing. Note the strangeness of the photon story. And when explaining that strangeness, do so using personification. Explain the (non-existent) photon particle in terms of Forrest Gump.

Consider the oddness and manifest impossibility of the photon story. A photon, and we shall call him “Forrest” is create ex-nihilo but it doesn’t matter where he is. He wants to accelerate to light speed immediately and “beat it” from wherever he is now. He doesn’t like where he is RIGHT NOW.  If he started off OVER THERE, he would not be happy either. Doesn’t matter where he starts, he doesn’t like it where he is. Something wrong with this photon, this photon is never satisfied with his whereabouts.

What could impel any particle, to be created like this, out of nothing,  and then to bugger off at the speed of light? The story is ridiculous and contradicted outright by the fact that light is wave motion.

(((((((Incidentally this fantasy is currently being abused by the global warming fraud but thats another matter.))))))

Hence the idea of all these particles of light, moving at the same speed, for extended distances, and this motion leading to light in total TRAVELLING IN WAVES, is a contradiction of the nature of a wave,  AS A WAVE. It doesn’t happen that way. The photon story is a lie. But the key point in explaining matters is to get people to look with fresh eyes on the impossibility of the light particle, just running off at the speed of light,  for no reason at all. “Where are you going Forrest? Forrest? Why are you running so fast? Don’t you like us?”

3. From showing that the story of the photons instantaneous acceleration to light speed for no reason at all the next step is to point out …….. “If its ridiculous for photons to just bugger off at the speed of light for no reason, think of how much more implausible it is for these notional gravity particles to high-tail it at twenty billion times the speed of light minimum? It doesn’t happen that way. Simple as that.

4. So if the instantaneous speed of gravity and the speed of light cannot be explained by fully independent particles, then what is the explanation for light and gravity? In fact we aren’t awash with explanations. We have no third choice even. We know for a fact that any particles that experience the force of gravity must be attached to all other particles that experience this force. There is quite literally no other explanation. Neither proposed or possible.

So as a result of the above there are one or two things about gravity and light that now are no mystery at all.

Spooky action at a distance is impossible and doesn’t happen. Space doesn’t bend warp or stretch. That idea is pure idiocy.  Rather all protons and neutrons in the known universe, are tethered to every other.

((((((Tightly connected but clearly with some potential for linear elasticity. Not a great deal of room for torsional elasticity though. This is an important point. These are orthogonal ropes with a lot of give longways, and almost no elasticity in their rotation. So that a rotational impulse anywhere, will be felt quickly a long way away. Hence the very fast transmission of that which we call “light.”)))))

It simply cannot be any other way and no-one has ever provided a serious alternative. The Gaede solution is the only rational solution that we have. Now we know what gravity is. Gravity is caused by the fact that all protons and neutrons are connected together by something we are entitled to call “ropes” for want of a better word. This is known. This is what we know for sure. Now its also follows pretty closely, that light ought to be impulses moving along these ropes. Since the speed of the torsion impulse is determined by the nature of the rope itself, we then have an explanation for why this light has no acceleration time and moves at the speed that it does. And we can start finding out a lot more about the nature of the orthogonal ropes.

QED

## Responses

1. How do you know there are protons and Neutrons.

Where is the evidence? And I’m not talking about the results of science workers. REAL evidence.

CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. BY THIS HIGH STANDARD THE INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF NEUTRONS DOESN’T REALLY CUT IT. SINCE A NEUTRON CAN BE SEEN AS MERELY A PROTON AND AN ELECTRON. THE THREE PARTICLES THAT I’M SATISFIED ABOUT ARE PROTONS, ELECTRONS AND NEUTRINOS. NEUTRINOS NOT FORMING CONNECTIONS TO THE OTHER TWO. THE WHOLE REST OF THE FAMILY OF ALLEGED PARTICLES I WOULD HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PEOPLE SHOW ME GOOD EVIDENCE.

• Yes I realise thats a bit of a cop-out. Because I don’t have the information in my random access memory as it were. But at no time do I ever remember anything suspicious about these three particles. Except to the extent that it might be worthwhile for people to have gone the whole hog with that Princes standing wave theory of particles. He got sidelined at some bigshot meeting. Event-dependent science and really quite disgraceful. It means that the prevailing theory is sociologically, rather than scientifically, determined.

2. Mr Bird
It appears that another Humphries is selling out freedom

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/01/2862100.htm

• Thanks for pointing it out. I’ve stopped watching the TV. Never heard of this Quisling. His name sure rings the Quisling bell.

• it does doesn’t it?

one wonders if the Humphreys gene pool should just be preemptively sterilised to secure the nation

• At least when push comes to shove we have the ready identifier. But he appears to be involved in some undertaking where he may not cause too much harm.

• Who? Sinclair Davidson?

3. Can’t wait to read the peer reviewed paper.

PEER REVIEWED PAPER? THIRD PARTIES I SUBMIT THAT WE HAVE A FELLOW WHO COULD NOT BE A SCIENTIST IF HE DIED, WAS BORN AGAIN, HAD A SUBSEQUENT BRAIN TRANSPORT, AND A STUPID-TUMOUR REMOVAL.

Sounds like you will be awarded the Nobel prize in the near future.

IT JUST GETS MORE STUPID DOESN’T IT? LIKE AL GORE? KRUGMAN? HOW ABOUT YASSER ARAFAT?

YOU JUST AREN’T REAL SMART ARE YOU.

• BULLSHIT. WHAT ASSUMPTIONS NEED CLARIFICATION? ITS ALL CUT AND DRIED. DONE AND DUSTED. HOME AND HOSED. WHY CLAIM THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION AND THEN SHOW YOU ARE LYING BY NOT ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION?

WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE? ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THERE IS SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE? PROVE IT!

• My response to SuckPoppet – who was not necessarily being wholly mischievous Birdy, as Loves Real Science pointed out (and what happened to LRS’s comment??) but voicing a common fallacy or mistaken understanding of the scientific method – was this.

No, science is not just about testable theories. This is an important point to understand.

Theoretical particle physics, e.g. exists in a realm beyond experiments to prove or disprove the latest advance in theory. Of course experimental and theoretical physics are related and sooner or later an attempt is made, if possible, to test theories.

Nevertheless, within the discipline of physics overall, theoretical physics is regarded as an activity in its own right and for many perfectly respectable physicists theoretical work is all they do.

Often the experimental verification of theories in physics cannot be tested for years, because the technology to do so doesn’t exist.

4. Exactly. Quantum physics shows that all is interconnected. Think of the social, environmental and political implications of this! Blows your mind.

Furthermore, harking back to previous discussion, Einstein said that light was both a wave and a particle. This wave-particle duality formed the basis of quantum mechanics in the 1920s.

Nigh impossible to visualise this though ain’t it and that’s cos the qualities referenced are essentially mathematical and so all visual analogies will be inadequate.

Niels Bohr, arguably one of the C20’s top two physicists said that anyone who wasn’t made “dizzy” by the very idea of what later physicists called “quantum weirdness” had lost the plot.

5. Off-topic. Bearing in mind this was 2007. For other candidates to have sounded like candidate Ron Paul they would have needed a time machine. Incredible in its own way, these answers could not have been improved upon with the knowledge of the last 3 years.

6. Mr Bird
you have been saying the same thing for ages. are you not a prophet?

• You listen to Ron Paul you’d think he was a fully paid up member of the society for time-traveling prophets. If I am not a prophet, Ron Paul would seem to be. Its a pity he isn’t twenty years younger. “The only thing wrong with Congressman Paul is that there is only one of him” (Art Robinson circa 2007).

7. “Funnily enough, Lardiculous describes himself as “Von-Daniken Lite.” And yet the ‘works’ of convicted fraud Erich VD have been traced to their source: Science-fiction writer HP Lovecraft.

Seriously? The science maffia managed to pin fraud charges on him? Un-fucking believable? Just shows what vicious bastards they are.

THE VON DANIKEN SPECTRUM.

Where on the spectrum are you in terms of your estimate of the frequency of aliens traveling to our solar system? Everyone ought to ask themselves that question. Ask themselves for a subjective estimate of the frequency of visitation.

Just three years ago I would have been almost on the extreme left. In that I thought they might come here with extreme infrequency. Once every tens of millions of years?

After seeing some pictures of very strange structures on mars, I thought perhaps we would expect them maybe once every million years or so.

Now I have no fixed position at all. I ask the Rugaru about it but the stupid redhaired little bugger cannot talk so he just shakes his head. Elvis keeps on going with the fry-up and he aint much help. Singing quietly to himself all the time.

I have to consider now, that ideas to the hard-right of Von Daniken can now be potentially plausible. You can go as far to the right as some people who think that the aliens are amongst us. Myself I aint seen ET lately. I ask the Rugaru and he just turns his palms up. But seriously. If they’ve had a breeding program here as recent as 900 years ago then its impossible to rule a great deal out.

8. Mr Bird
are the orientals behind this frame up?

• I don’t know Winchestor. These celestials are inscrutable. Even when they are not up to anything they are up to something. Now that Gavin Menzies has been shown to be a reasonable speculative historian, what we have to get used to is the idea that the celestials may be so superior to the rest of us that they could quite easily convince themselves that we are akin to hapless lab-rats.

9. Some of the early poems from China that Philomena posted a long time ago would seem to suggest that our view of the orientals as having a sort of locked in statism to their culture might be just a misunderstanding.

It may be rather that being more advanced, and at an earlier date, the stultifying post-modern conditioning kicked in also a little earlier. One of her poems just seemed to transmit something akin to the spirit of what you would expect in the colonies during the enlightenment.

Hundreds of years of paper money could have beaten some of that out of them. On the other hand if we were talking a millenium ago, for all I know, these people might have had as much of the spirit of freedom as we had in the 18th and 19th centuries. I’m talking from total ignorance here and pointing out only that for me these matters are up in the air.

10. Just mucking about Ron. Contemplating house arrest on the basis of family name. But I don’t know if Humphreys is doing any harm right now. He may be doing good running against the Milky Bar Kid.

11. Graeme, I’m so pleased your liked those poems. Well who wouldn’t. They were from the T’ang era. A golden age for the arts and philosophy.

Around the same time in Japan fabulous poetry was also being written, by women in particular.

Such as this, by my favourite, the sublime Izumi Shikibu (9th century)

Then, when we were joined,
I became shyer.
I became completed,
joyful and shyer.

2.
He takes me into
ending after ending
like another world
at the centre of this one.

3.
Though a swift stream is
Divided by a boulder
Though divided, on it rushes,
And at last unites again.

4.
From Tsukuba’s peak,
Falling waters have become
Mina’s still, full flow:
So my love has grown to be;
Like the river’s quiet deeps.

• Awesome Philomena. You’ve outdone yourself this time. I tend to like all the poems you help educate me with. But I don’t always read them straight away. Being a bit of a philistine in this area of literature, I know that if I read them when I’m not in the right mood then I’ll never get the right buzz from them.

I think I know why you chose this one. Its for that spooky time machine effect. That 1000 years ago but only yesterday effect that first grabbed me with that Chinese poem with the woodcutter, that was the first of your poems that I was moved to comment on at Catallaxy

Those guys at Catallaxy ought have, for their own sakes, learnt to be a bit more tolerant. They ought to have said “Ho ho. There is Phil being wildly provocative again.. ” or “Ho ho. There is Phil going off with one of her poems again…. hey, but this is alright”. Actually I think Michael Sutcliffe might have wound up with that attitude after being scarily nasty. Still for balance I must say I never really approved of you baiting CL. Because we always had people showing up by the bakers dozen baiting Cl.

Anyhow thats a pretty amazing poem. Its the stock and trade, one would think, with the mature creative artist to be innovative about complex stuff. You don’t run out of complex stuff to put a new or more polished angle on. But how hard is it to be creative-with-simplicity? Tough gig. Tough gig for sure. And even if you get that right, surely those who come after you will erode the ability of your little flourish or somewhat newly expressed idea to be seen of as fresh in retrospect.

The girl who wrote this poem of yours. She must have been practicing witch-craft and her innocent characterisation of herself a set of poses. Because how can you do that? Maintain the illusion or actuality of freshness and simplicity through the veil of tears of one thousand years. That takes some sort of magic. But looking at it again, I cannot associate this very sweet girl with the dark arts. Though one suspects trickery. But listen to this sweetheart:

“He takes me into
ending after ending
like another world
at the centre of this one.”

Thats just amazing. Thats just stunning. Because it ought to be OLD HAT but its not for some reason. Unbelievable. It ought to be stale but after 1000 years its not.

After that astonishing revelation I have an announcement to make. Where visiting female readers are concerned, multiple female orgasm is always on-topic, no matter what the topic happens to be. So long as it is couched in non-crude terms like what we see above. And plus, since the above is of surpassing quality don’t be worried if ones contribution is to fall short of what we see that Philomena has been able to reference with her knowledge, so broad and deep and always with the natural artists sensibilities.

But cruder versions are probably not appropriate, although they will be still eagerly welcomed by the blog owner if he is sure that the contributer is indeed female.

Welcomed and yet not appropriate. Thats a bit of a paradox I know. It becomes a bit less of a paradox if one considers that cruder versions might probably be discussed with the blog owner under direct email.

• There are stunning aren’t they. Your appreciation is warranted. She would have been pleased with what you wrote. As I am. There are heaps of her poems on line. She knew a lot about sexual bliss, heartbreak and all that jazz. These were her main themes.

12. Birdy, China did in fact show an amazing parallel in the realm of ideas to Europe around the end of the 16th century, experiencing a “renaissance” of its own characterised among other things by developments in theatre, the novel and philosophy.

Many intellectuals at the time belonged to a political and literary club called the “Society of Renewal” and it was then too that the influence of Zhan Buddhism began to grow, and the concept of “liang zhi”, or “innate moral knowledge”. This was a Chinese form of Platonism which held that there is a principle of good inherent in the mind before any contamination by egoistic thoughts and desires which everyone must try to discover in their self.

This school of “innate knowledge” was of course very subversive and controversial not least because its advocates denounced Confucius, arguing that he prevented thought, which was inherent in everyone.

Another aspect of the Chinese renaissance in the 16th-17th centuries was the massive growth in schools and libraries as China reacted to and built on the discovery in the West or printing by movable type.

13. Louis le Comte, a French Jesuit who was part of a Jesuit mission to China in the mid 17th century argued in his book that China had practised the Christian virtues for more than 2000 years. Of course he was denounced for his blasphemous pains back in Europe.

Leibniz thought that in most matters of ethics and politics China was ahead of Europe and even went so far as to suggest Chinese be taught as a universal language. Voltaire agreed.

Chinese food, drink and architecture was all the rage in Europe in the 18th century including in royal circles. Chinese pavilions, palaces, pagodas, ornamental parks, even entire villages were built, artists painted in the Chinese style and everyone who was anyone drank tea from porcelain cups.

14. Good post Graeme. I wasn’t familiar with the Ropes theory, but after seeing explanations here and by Bill Gaede, it makes sense to me.

This theory I think also adds weight to the expanding earth theory, which I have accepted for some time. It is a much better explanation for what is observed today about the earth than the tectonic plate stuff the science hijackers have foisted upon the rest of the mainly non thinking public.

The mechanism by which the earth has expanded
could be by tension (effectively trying to pull everything apart) on these ropes, causing physical matter, even atoms to grow. This expansion is not uniform as at times some of the intertwined ropes break, before reconnecting again. The size of atoms has only been able to be measured in the last century, so it is not reasonable to say that atoms have not increased in size.

The tendency of things to grow over long periods of time is not really a factor for living things, as they adapt their size to the ongoing environment, The large size of some dinosaurs can be best explained by lower gravity, rather than increasing atom size in this respect.

Keep up your posting of real science items Graeme.

• Hmmmmm. Don’t know about your explanation for growing earth theory. Growing earth is good theory. But I’m not sure of your formulation here. But it is true that the dinosaurs faced lesser gravity then ourselves. Neal Adams version of growing earth theory I find pretty convincing. Essentially he reckons that you have all this “prime matter.” Less effectual matter that doesn’t interact with the rest of the universe to any great degree. This get converted to normal matter via some process involving the rotation of the earth around the sun. He sees normal matter as essentially to do with a tiny bit of actual substance and a relatively large field. With Prime Matter its like the field is turned inwards. With actual matter its more like a bubble. With the field outwards so this normal matter is interacting with the rest of the universe.

Integrating the two ideas it might be you’ve got all this matter around but its not hooked in with the network of “ropes” and therefore is thought to be massless. But this doesn’t mean its not substantial. In fact take the issue of the electron. Supposing the electron merely helps the proton pull on the ropes a little better. A tiny bit more. And that the electron is attracted to the proton. The electron could then be larger and more substantial then the proton, but since its not a system of ropes itself it could be misunderstood to be smaller and less substantial.

15. Truism, why would you think I am Graeme? I think you’d do better if you’d be less insulting to the true science appreciators.

You most likely have swallowed the propaganda that the science hijackers have been peddling, the same elitist fools that conspire to keep the proponents of real science quiet, by pinning all sorts of derogatory labels on them.

It’s disgusting, but I’m hoping to see some poetic justice in due course.

Graeme, thanks for your clarifications, I’ll be taking a closer look at the ropes theory.

• Good stuff. Bill has written the best physics book around. Its truly a pleasure to read. He’s completely recast modern physics. He’s brought us to where funded researchers ought to have their work pretty much cut out for them to translate his reasoning into a more precise body of knowledge.

Any of Neal Adams’ stuff is worthwhile and completely ingenious. Also Paul LaViolette is worth reading too. There is this other fellow who sounds both new-agey and voodoo, while at the same time being a little bit too respectful of the mainstream. A fellow called Harimein. One ought not be put off as I think he has some interesting ideas.

But I would see Bill’s book as the canonical text. I’ve gone and lost it. Had it only a few weeks and already I’ve lost the damn thing. Don’t leave it lying around. Some bugger will “borrow” it and he won’t be able to put it down.

16. Goodness me. I’ll have to fix the thread up tomorrow. Too many spelling mistakes and confused grammar.

17. Nope. I checked the thread itself. No examples of plagiarism. Plus I mentioned Bill Gaede. Given my determined publicising of Bill earlier in this blog, me not putting him front and centre, but only mentioning him briefly has to be considered acceptable.

So you must be talking about plagiarism in the comments section. I’ll look into this later. I’d have to recognise it as a possibility. This is an afterwork gig for me and I write pretty quickly. Why don’t you just tell me what you mean and I can give all due acknowledgements?

18. Terribly putupon entrepreneur Malcolm MClaren has died. I don’t know about any ethical lapses alleged or real. But you’d have to say he was an authentic creative artist. Not perhaps a creative genius. But a real artist and you can be too extremist either way when taking sides.

19. Mr Bird
I confess.

I am Jason Soon’s sock puppet. I am a good man trapped in a wavering man’s body. What should I do to encourage my host to turn to the right side?

site deity sez: BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY BLOODY

I had this huge reply, and I was on the verge of unlocking the mystery of the genius of Will Shakespeare, and then I posted it and you know what? The cunt asked me to log back into my own blog ……. and I lost my post.

Great work Mr Soon. I had slowly come to that thesis with certainty but even after I had the IP’s there was still about 30% doubt at first, because of the tremendous quality of it.

IT SEEMS THAT THE TASK, ALONG WITH THE CONSTRAINTS, YOU SET YOURSELF, LOCK INTO SOME SORT OF DEFINITIVE METHOD.

You would understand if you read my now lost post.

“What should I do to encourage my host to turn to the right side?”

You could start by saying this five times a day, with or without the mat and compass that points towards Mecca.

LITERARY REALISM AND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

The character would not have worked had you tried to hard to smuggle your own gear through…… But this is only one point in support of the caps-lock slogan above.

20. “I’ve gone and lost it. Had it only a few weeks and already I’ve lost the damn thing. Don’t leave it lying around.”

I HAVE NO SUCH EVIDENCE. NEITHER DO YOU. YOU CANNOT EVEN PROVE THAT SHE IS DEAD.

21. NO THERE IS NO COMMENTS POLICY FOR ANYONE TO MANIPULATE. I CREATE SO MUCH HOSTILITY, THAT MY IDEA IS TO MODERATE ANYONE ANONYMOUS WHO I’VE GROWN SUSPICIOUS OF.

22. Personally I think suck poppet is waging a war against science. I believe he is a gravity skeptic. He is against gravity science. I used to call people like him denialists. Now I think of them as delusionists.

Who is he to claim that there is no pull force of gravity? Where are his citations? Have his bizare ideas been peer reviewed?

23. I think Loves Real Science is genuine and interesting. And wants to engage. I may be wrong. I often am.

Now there is a theory isn’t there that gravity, or a form of it, was once a repellent rather than attractive force?

24. YOU HAVEN’T SEEN HIM COPY ALLEGEDLY OTHER PEOPLES POSTS TO HAVE THEM READY. NOR HAVE YOU SEEN HIM COME UP WITH HALF A DOZEN IP’S.

HE’S FULL OF SHIT.

• LRS: It’s important to understand first principles and accept chronology.

After being under long-term sustained malicious attack by usually lesser, narrower intellects it’s not unusual to go a bit stir crazy and be overly defensive. I do it all the time. (Smiley)

Contrary ideas are not really lethal weapons, though they can often feel that way. But if in defence of an idea a person tries to destroy another’s feelings of self-worth and undermine their dignity, the natural inclination is to strike back hard.

Even more so when you are one against many.

25. NOT ONLY IS HE FULL OF SHIT BUT LIKE ELECTRIC HE HAS AN ENDLESS SUPPLY OF IP’S. THIS TROLL HAS GONE SO FAR AS TO SUBSCRIBE TO AN IP PROVIDER.

26. It may help solve the problem, which is a problem for both blog owners and commenters – in that it suggests the need for perspective.

If people are abusive and crude why would anyone want a record of that on their blog or want to engage with it?

OTOH if a commenter says something challenging that is non-personal, non-abusive, well then yes, it is in the interests of everyone, and of science and intellectual enquiry to engage with that idea, that argument, in good faith.

27. LRS hasn’t been abusive. He’s been appreciative, if anything. Perspective is important. And I am not the owner of this blog, so I cannot know what Graeme knows or thinks or feels.

A good rule of thumb though can be to draw a metaphorical line in the sand and move on.

Speaking of lunatics (well someone was, not me) Graeme have you heard of the British Lunar Society? You’ll love this.

28. Philomena. On my blog, no-one is sent to the outer dark for all time. But having six IP’s in half an hour is a pretty aggressive act. Plus he was trying to conflate me with someone else to bring me down by association.

Here is a great playlist involving a lot of the problems that the PZ MYERS crowd tend to avoid about the theory of evolution. They ignore the fact that we don’t have a good explanation for young-universe, single-planet evolution.

Actually just dial up “Icons Of Evolution.”

• RIGHT. THE PZ MYERS APPROACH TO SCIENCE.

• FURTHER DELINIATION OF THE PZ MYERS APPROACH TO SCIENCE. BRANDING LOGICAL PEOPLE AS CRANKS BY WAY OF A POINT SYSTEM. YOU COULD NOT MAKE THIS IDIOCY UP. BUT THIS IS HOW THESE UNSCIENTISTS THINK.

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

AGREED BY WHOM?

(((2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

HOW COULD MAINSTREAM PHYSICS JUDGE SUCH A THING. HAVING REJECTED LOGIC?

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

YOU MUST MEAN THE DOCTRINE OF TIME DILATION RIGHT?

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.)))

SO IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE CORRECTION WASN’T CORRECT RIGHT?

BLUFF AND PROJECTION

(((5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.)))

WIDELY ACCEPTED BY WHOM

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

IRRELEVANT.

5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.

IDIOCY. THE FUCKING MORON PZ MYERS QUOTED FEYNMANN WHEN HE WAS GIVING A SPEECH IN MY COUNTRY.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

THE ABOVE STATEMENT PROOF THAT THE QUANTUM HANGERS ON ARE AMONGST THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. YOU CANNOT MAKE THE ABOVE STUPIDITY UP. ANY QUESTIONING OF THE STUPID IDEAS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR IS IMMEDIATELY HELD TO BE THE SUBJECT OF SCORN. QUANTUM PHYSICS IS IDIOCY, SINCE IT PROPOSES NO STRUCTURE FOR THE LITTLE WORLD. NO SHAPE. EVERYTHING MATHEMATICAL THE DUMB BASTARDS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN THEY SAY THINGS. THEY GET SHIRTY IF YOU TALK ABOUT ORBITS. BUT THEN AFTER CHANGING THE WORD TO ORBITALS, THE MORONS CANNOT TELL YOU WHY OR DEFINE AN ORBITAL. QUANTUM MECHANICS ADVOCATES MUST BE THE MOST STUPID PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST LYING CHARGES WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IDIOTS LIKE PZ MYERS.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

ANYTHING YOU SAY WILL BE USED TO CONDEMN YOU UNDER THE PZ MYERS APPROACH.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

A TRUE SCIENTIST WOULD ONLY BE TOO HAPPY TO LISTEN TO ANY NEW IDEAS.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU DO, YOU CANNOT SHAME OR BRIBE THINKING OUT OF SOMEONE AS STUPID AS PZ MYERS.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

TIME FOR THE BULLY BOYS TO LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.

YOU DON’T EVEN NEED THAT. A GOOD THEORY DESCRIBES THINGS. AND MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THEORY. QUALITATIVE REASONING IS INDEED MORE IMPORTANT THAN MATHS. BUT BOTH ARE NEEDED. NOT NECESSARILY IN THE ONE PERSON. MATHS IS A TOOL. LIKE A HAMMER OR A CHAINSAW.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.

NO ARGUMENT NO MATTER HOW RATIONAL WILL BE ACCEPTABLE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT DUMB THEORIES ARE IN FACT ONLY THEORIES. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND THE BIG BANG THESE NEVER GOT PAST THEORY STAGE. SINCE THEY LACKED EVIDENCE IN THEIR FAVOUR. AND THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PROVED WRONG.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.

ANOTHER GOOD ARGUMENT NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF IT BEING A GOOD ARGUMENT. SPECIAL RELATIVITY HAD SOME PREDICTIVE VALUE EARLY ON. NOT A GREAT DEAL BY THE WAY. WE ALREADY KNEW MECRUY’S ORBIT SO THAT WASN’T A PREDICTION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. THE BIG BANG THEORY DIDN’T PREDICT ANYTHING SUCESSFULLY. WHERE THE DECEPTION IS HERE IS THAT WHEN AN IDIOT LIKE PZ MYERS SAYS THAT WORD “PREDICT” HE DOESN’T MEAN IT. HE MEANS THAT THE THEORY COULD ACCOMMODATE THE DATA AFTER THE FACT.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

MAINSTREAM PHYSICS IS ALL ABOUT THE CULT OF PERSONALITY.

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.

NO MATTER HOW HONEST YOU ARE IT WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled “Einstein” in item 8.)

THATS PRECISELY WHAT THE STUPID CUNT IS DOING. ACTUALLY I’M GOING TO FIND OUT WHO WROTE THIS IDIOCY AND EMAIL HIM. JUST TO POINT OUT WHAT A LAUGHABLE STUPID CUNT HE IS. I MIGHT GO AND POKE FUN AT HIM IN LECTURES.

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

I WOULDN’T WISH SUCH IGNOMY ON A WORST ENEMY.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

THIS FELLOW IS SO FUCKING DUMB, HE DOESN’T REALISE HE IS TOTALLY AGAINST CLASSICAL MECHANICS.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

YOU MEAN LIKE THE MYTH OF THE SINGULARITY? THE MYTH OF AND ULTIMATE SPEED LIMIT?THE MYTH OF THE BIG BANG? THE PHOTON-MYTH? THE MYTHICAL SPACE-TIME?

DUMB FUCKING MORONIC PROJECTION AGAIN.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

I’D JUST BASH THIS CUNT ON SIGHT IF HE TRIED TO RIDICULE ME. SEE WHO WOULD BE LAUGHING THEN.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the “The Evans Field Equation” when your name happens to be Evans.)

COMPLETELY FUCKING NORMAL BEHAVIOUR. ANY THEORY I HAVE I’M CALLING IT AFTER ME. THIS IS CLEARLY SAID BY SOMEONE TOO USELESS TO SUSS OUT A NEW IDEA AND JEALOUS OF HIS SUPERIORS.

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

IDIOTS LEFTIST PROJECTION. SO TELL US ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.

20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.

A FINE PHRASE. WHAT A STUPID CUNT HEY?

20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy”.

ANOTHER EXCELLENT PHRASE. THIS FELLOW COULD REALLY NOT BE MORE OF A DUMB CUNT IF WE PAID HIM TO BE.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

IF FEYNMAN WASN’T A CLOSET OPPONENT OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEN HE WAS A STUPID CUNT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I’LL TRUST YOUR JUDGEMENT EITHER WAY.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

THATS A POSSIBILITY

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

WELL THIS ONE COMES FROM BILL GAEDE. BUT I’M SURE THERE WERE PRECEDENTS. OF COURSE AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL CIVILISATION WOULD HAVE IT RIGHT. THEY ARE NOT TRAVELING THAT MANY LIGHT-YEARS ON THE ADVICE OF OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

THE COMPARISON COULD NOT BE MORE APPROPRIATE. THERE IS ALWAYS A MINDLESS TOTALITARIAN EDGE TO THE SPECIALISTS WHO HOLD TO THESE WRONG THEORIES. “YOU WILL BELIEVE 2+2=5, IS WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE SAYING.

40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

WELL NOT MY WORK NO. THEY ARE JUST TOTALLY AGAINST ANY GOOD WORK.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

WELL IF IT WERE TRUE IT WOULD NOT BE WRONG TO SUGGEST IT.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

THEY ARE A SHAM NOW. THEY ARE FUCKING MORONS. LOOK AT THE FUCKING MORON WHO PRODUCED THIS TESTIMONY TO PROUD, BELLIGERENT, AND TERMINAL STUPIDITY.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

THATS JUST SILLY. WE ALREADY KNOW THE SPEED OF LIGHT SO ITS NOT UNKNOWN FOR US TO PREDICT. SO YOU PROVE THAT LIGHT IS NOT MADE OF PHOTONS. HOW WILL THAT CHANGE LIGHTS BEHAVIOUR.

ONCE AGAIN THE STUPID CUNT HAS RUN AGROUND BECAUSE HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT PREDICT MEANS.

WHAT A STUPID CUNT THIS FELLOW IS.

• Ha, you missed the point again moron.

Scientists don’t do science by points, that little exercise is applicable to psuedoscience and nutjobs who try to bypass peer review.

29. If they are for real Philomena, they will be a bit more patient. And not try and smuggle things in by excessive changing of IP Addresses. I’ll not get angry with a little bit of smuggling. But assholes who aren’t interested in decent reasoning, who also try and cost me a lot of time, well one can see how I’d tend to not give them the benefit of the doubt for a little while at least.

30. ropes?
the point with Einstein special relativity is that the time differential changes the distance light travel in a second. what idiot on earth will think of spacetime
in only one spacetime reference. that the dumbest thing i ever read. can sombody explain to me why the large objects in space seem to be time dilated slow
when the small objects seem to change very fast in time.

31. You’re in point of fact a good webmaster. The web site loading velocity is incredible. It sort of feels that you’re doing any distinctive trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a wonderful activity in this topic!

32. Thanks for every other informative site. Where else could I am getting that kind of information written in such a perfect means? I’ve a mission that I’m simply now working on, and I have been at the look out for such info.

33. Graeme Bird :
02 Oct 2012 7:17:29pm
One cannot hope to get an angle on the energy and environmental scene if one is bigoted …… and therefore unwilling, to entertain the conspiracy hypothesis (at least as an intellectual exercise.) What we have here is useless energy sources being exalted BECAUSE they are useless. And we have excellent energy sources being ridiculed and abused BECAUSE they are excellent.

Thorium is excellent so it is ignored and abused. Three-blade wind is, in the wider scheme of things, fundamentally useless so it gets all the publicity. Both three-blade wind and solar panels are useless outside of niche applications. They really are useless don’t doubt it. The numbers never add up. And if solar panels ever really took off they’d blow out the cost of silver (just for starters) and become untenable again.

1. Thorium 2. thorium-boosted synthetic diesel 3. Tesla towers 4.Dyson-Harrop satellites and 5. DH-satellite-boosted Tesla towers
…… these are all excellent. As is uranium if it can be made safe in the context of natural disaster and full-blown war. (I said IF!)

But you won’t hear about the energy sources that are worthwhile, except in the context of waves of abuse and ridicule, since there is a contingent out there, who WANTS energy prices to stay high … who WANTS most of the rest of us to be poor.

34. Graeme Bird :
02 Oct 2012 8:24:45pm
“So true environmentalism equates to reducing industrialisation.”

This is the problem. On the right we have this “she’ll be right jack. I’ve got mine, you’re just jealous, go get yours” attitude.

On the left we have the above attitude. Doesn’t know a damn thing about nature, science or energy, doesn’t want to know. Pretending to know is good enough.

We can have relentlessly growing living standards and at the same time, we can be reducing our footprint, to where its the smallest at any time, since we came out of Africa. But not if we have this bipartisan idiocy the entire time.

35. Graeme Bird :

02 Oct 2012 7:33:43pm

Good article by the way. If we have the right policy, we can be taking up less and less of the ground-space every year, except for those of us who want to have large properties wherein we wish to create something glorious with an abundance of biodiversity. We can get to a stage wherein, each year the human world has more living VOLUME per capita and in total. More living and working VOLUME every way you want to measure it … and at the same time cede more and more of the earths surface to biodiversity.

We cannot do this quickly. But we can do this. Picture a situation where its THE POOR who live in these ridiculously spacious sky houses. Dig it that it would be the POOR who would be looking down on the rich in their Edwardian estates. Dig if you will a picture where you could ride your horse, through land (GOOD LAND) in a curved path, from the centre of town, to anywhere else …. Imagine if you will a world where no matter how many billions of humans were living on the planet ……… the sky-houses were so cost-effective, that if you came to a time in your life where you wanted you and the kids to be running around on twenty acres ….. then it would be very cheap for you to do so.

The above is a world, that from a technical point of view, would be very easy to orchestrate. No “not in time for you or for me” but good policy would take us there in three centuries max.

36. I want to ignore some of what you are saying here because I don’t agree with the watts-per-square-metre, back-radiation model when it comes to climate science. However it is NOT true that a reliance on thorium, Tesla towers, and dyson-harrop satellite enhancement of Tesla towers …. it is not true that these would not EVENTUALLY lead to reductions in CO2 output.
Since ore grade materials are increasingly difficult to find, with abundant energy, eventually carbon fibres would be a normal building block of all sorts of structures, from large parts of industrial machinery to high-rise buildings. Our success in any undertaking must ultimately be pinned on abundant energy. And abundant energy in nature is there for the taking. Abundant energy will naturally lead to human race to eventually take CO2 OUT of the biosphere rather than the other way around. Given the extreme flexibility of carbon-based materials.
I did a paper in energy economics, and the key finding of the whole thing was that substitution away from primary energy sources was quite stable and notoriously slow. It was completely different from consumer products and energy economics is completely different to the rest of economic science. The answer to this dilemma was therefore to do as Caesar advised …. and “Make Haste Slowly.”
We’ve got to get away from this big corporate version of government projects where we line up billions of dollars of debt with international financial criminals in the room, and we try and rush things. Why not start canal-building in South Australia, and Thorium on the East Coast on 5000 dollar a day budgets? Start it now. No enquiry. No legislation. No mucking about.
Let me give you an example from the past. Before Telecom was privatised there was this expert with a funny accent on the ABC. His name was Paul Budde (as in Buddha). Anyway he said that the way to privatise was by way of analogy to a trucking company. Of course if you are a communist country, and you want to offload some of your responsibilities, then you may wish to offload your trucking companies.
Now do you sell the trucking companies and the roads together? To the same outfits? “No” said Paul Budde. You deal with the two different categories of properties separately. And until you know exactly what you are doing you keep the roads in government hands, and you sell off the trucks and on the trucking side, and you let big business grow out of small business success.
So Paul had the right answer all that time ago. And so had we proceeded with Pauls way, we would have had a much sounder industry. We wouldn’t have Mexicans running away with 70 million dollar severance packages for doing next to nothing. And best of all we could have started, on the strength of Paul’s argument, a 5000 dollar-a-day optical fibre program. We could have started it more than 20 years ago. Now of course projects of this sort don’t have to stay at 5000 dollars a day in their budget. But cost-effectiveness takes time and you can increase the budget 1% per day when you know (not THINK, but know) that you will be getting value for money.
We could have a dozens of these little projects on the fly, decades before we could plausibly start anything under our current system, and everyone would know when it was time to increase their budget. “Make Haste Slowly.”
Make has slowly, now if you imagine that there is a near and present danger of a tipping point with CO2, then you have a quandary. Because there is literally no way around it from our starting point. Cost-effective substitution is simply too slow. Even the best of ideas can be rendered cost-ineffective by the Steve Conroy approach.
I take issue with your word “unfortunate” with regards to my attitude towards Thorium. That is high-browed anti-scientific silliness on your part. Its true that it would take twenty years for us to get cost-effective thorium-based electricity, and another 30 years for such an endeavour to make headway on CO2 output, if you think that this is important. I don’t, everyone else here does. But nonetheless its true that seeking a Thorium (and Tesla Tower, and Dyson-Harrop satellite) future is not going to make headway on CO2 output in under 50 years. 50 years minimum. So if you don’t like that you have a problem. And the answer to the problem you have is to bring back Malthusian values. And Malthusian values can only lead to fascism. As if we don’t have enough of the fascism around the place already.
Now I take issue with another thing. I don’t like deficit spending. Nonetheless you are blaming Keynesianism for a problem that really must rest on the feet of fractional reserve parasitism. Under the fractional reserve, central banking model, all money is created as debt. So there is always more money then debt. Attempts to pay off debt generally therefore lead to monetary contraction. Therefore the debts are permanent, and not a matter of individual choice. The debts are therefore a sneaky form of slavery. And so its this private banking, central bank, fractional model that is the real problem that you ought to be addressing. Anyone wanting a new source of funding for infrastructure ought not back down from this most timely of issues.
If you want to reduce CO2 output quickly the way to do this, and I approve, is to increase royalties on coal. Get rid of the company tax on coal miners, but put royalties through the roof, and then refund that part of the royalties for local coal consumers, so that at least we can have cheap energy here. The only way to realistically reduce CO2 output is for Australia to start pricing its coal out of the export market. If its an emergency you’ll do it, and reverse the policy only as appeasement against intimidation coming out of North Asia.
Is it an emergency or not? If its an emergency lets start reducing exports slowly in this way. Or quickly in this way. I’m happy about that, and I would support that sort of strategy, though I’m a denialist bigtime.

37. Proof? Evidence? You have no evidence. Your disdain for the scientific method is absolute. You hate science and rationality and have hitched your wagon to the anti-science armada of the extreme right. Come back when you actually have something beyond the incoherent ramblings of a diseased mind to share with us…

38. My logic is inescapable. The evidence is the behaviour of light, and gravity. All your life you have witnessed the behaviour of light and gravity, and at school you learned more about the behaviour of light and gravity. THIS…. is the evidence.

39. Amazing. Actual footage of an authentically great man. A sort of ethical genius. A fellow that anyone ought to have wanted as an uncle. I didn’t think he’d be on film. Excellent historian, social commentator, ethicist, his economics is sound, and judging by some of his concerns, and his novel in garish colours …..”THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY” something of a visionary and true prophet. I think the Catholic church ought to hunt around for some miracles for this fellow and perhaps update his status to VENERABLE just for starters.

Manifestly a great fellow all the way around. No wonder the venerable Sheen quotes him, a lay person, as if he were a church authority. This is my sort of fellow. My sort of bloke.

Also I’d recommend “The Man Who Was Thursday” to anyone. Jason Soon I’m talking to you. This bizarre dreamscape is a quick read. When have I ever let you down? And you as a Chinaman, ought to know what makes us anglo-celts tick. I’m only interested in the best of the Western tradition and this modern era makes me want to puke. This fellow is part of the best of the Western tradition.

THE CLIMAX OF ETHICS IN THE WESTERN TRADITION.

40. We are in a lot of trouble. I figured who we really needed was Andrew Jackson. But we need Chesterton as well. Chesterton really like Capitalism but he thought the problem was that there weren’t enough capitalists. Capitalism with more capitalists was the answer in his view. Clearly we can see now that this is the right answer. Surely since all that has happened since the Reagan era we can see this?