“LIBERTARIANISM” Is A Judas Goat.

I’ve decided that the meme virus that has begun to call itself libertarianism is actually a Judas Goat. It will help murder more people than communism. Mostly of course, because the population of the planet is now higher than it was in 1917, and the prospects were less good for global dictatorship than they are now.

Just consider two comments from a recent thread in the site selling-out-freedom.

“Won’t somebody please think of the children?

Comment by Yobbo | November 7, 2009″

“I think Monckton is going a bit OTT here.

Yes, we’ll sign up to a new international treaty… and, yes, to some degree that transfers some power to an international body. And yes, such a process could easily lead to a world government at some stage.

But we’re still a very long way away from that. And this is only another small step. Let’s not over-dramatise.

Comment by John Humphreys | November 7, 2009″

CONSIDER MY CENSORED COMMENT BY COMPARISON.

“Well you don’t want to over-dramatize another nail in the coffin of humane civilisation Humphreys. Because you are helping cause it. What is the gains to be made from playing it down? You want to play up an unscientific and fake campaign. And now you want to underplay a move towards our destruction.

Comment by graemebird | November 8, 2009″

Yobbo and Humphreys are both Judas Goats its true. Is yobbo supposing that we DON’T think of the children? The one who will be starved off and murdered? The ones that will never escape poverty? And neither of them are libertarians even by the wildest stretch of the imagination. But both these guys are very much representative of the the Judas-goat meme-virus that has begun to call itself libertarianism.

Note the idiocy and insanity of Jason Soon, an anti-libertarian, fully against Ron Paul, a year ago demonically in favour of Soetoro. Consider the insanity of him habitually. HABITUALLY equating an authentic libertarian with Pol Pot, and Stalin.

Well Jason hates libertarianism. But nonetheless he is very much a representative of the Judas Goat meme that has come to call itself libertarianism.

Already with a global treaty looming, all of our leaders about to commit treason, given that test, the Judas goat faux-libertarians, in public FAILED that test.

The worst thing about this is the Judas Goat meme has made the destruction of humane civilisation bipartisan in the Australian economics fraternity. So the hot house pressure-cooker of the public service, banking and academia has slowly forced even rightest economists, and even pretty good rightest economists, in the direction of our destruction.

I hope I’ve been waking people up to this in small measure, and getting them to rethink some of their ideas, and how they are somehow being forced to talk in strategically destructive ways and support strategically destructive policies.

Tax Exemptions Can Harden Up Australia/Youtube Links.

The cheapest way to harden up Australia is for everyone around the world to know that there is an open exemption to most taxes here, if you are going to show up and produce goods that have a security component to them. So a rational PM who wasn’t swanning about the world giving away money that he has stolen off us, and betraying his nation…. if a reasonable PM was actually doing his job, his office would be contacting people throughout the world, letting them know personally that their company, has an open invitation to come here and be tax exempt. So the Californian entrepreneur who makes dragonskin body armour would naturally get a call on the first day a reasonable man finds that he has won the election.

With the talk of disaster rising in the world, and the actual science which says it will one day happen, it is very important that people don’t get fatalistic and lose heart, or alternatively ignore real threats and play up fake threats and lies like the CO2-emissions science-fraud. Both these attitudes are counter-productive. The idea is to harden up Australia via tax exemptions primarily. And open invitations that bring the right people here to do the work that needs to be done.

There is even a role here for guest worker refugees waiting to be relocated. We want to get that preferred refugee system underway now, because when disaster strikes we will have tens of millions rather then tens of thousands of these people that we ought deal with humanely and fairly but strictly in the interests of incumbent citizens.

People you must not turn away from these problems. And you must not despair at the thought of extended nuclear war or galactic centre/supernova disaster. These problems can be overcome given time, and the only real problem lies in the hearts of men and women and in the minds of stupid people who refuse to see reason and are in contempt of evidence.

Below is a post from Catallaxy highlighting a building that is immune to natural disaster and wherein one person inside could fight off an armed attack of half a dozen from without. Further to that I’ll highlight videos from youtube that show evidence of the possibility to tax exempt scores of firms and invite them here, and as well categorize locals for tax exemption as well. Remembering that we might not enforce patents in a free economy and so locals may quickly copy and put up fair competition against these people who would nonetheless at least have a bit of a headstart.

“Part of the way we could harden up Australia is to allow companies like the one linked below to operate tax-free here.

http://korvelo.com/pyramid_house.php

Useful for integrating our need to be ready for armed invasion, extended nuclear war, or galactic centre explosion/supernova events.

See it doesn’t cost much. A small amount of foregone tax, most of which will be grabbed back in GST. And some work from immigration to allow people these firms to bring people (they think are skilled enough to help make their products) into the country.

This is the sort of thing I mean. If we are holistic about our defense, we can turn back or disarm all invaders, whether these pretenders try to take us on one at a time or yet all of them together. Through thick and thin and through myriad disasters the likes of which revelations might imply.

These prophetic books could have been based on earlier works that were themselves based on memories of the last massive generalised disaster. The terrible litany of manifold catastrophes, turn out all to have the same root cause. And not necessarily the supernatural intention that one would need, to produce a myriad of independent misfortunes coincidental to the same time period.

We don’t get this sort of holistic thinking in our average white paper. But its got to start and it must start soon.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMNzoWkXTtc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFgY8FyQD-g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xb9PFF4MSc&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-w9oIZ0Mnw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9jdIm7grCY&feature=PlayList&p=4A96A445B3796C87&index=1

Naturally I could also put up stacks of links from various weapons manufacturers, ESPECIALLY OF LESS LETHAL WEAPONS or weapons that can be adapted to less lethal applications. But this ought to be enough to have people realise that we can harden this country up. And we can withstand almost anything puny humans or the galaxy throws at us.

Supernova Civilisational Survival/ Vela And The Mastodon/ Three Intersecting Sets/ No Time For Mucking About Anymore.

Dig this. The last time I tried to make a link between the alleged Quarternary extinction event (the event that was thought to have wiped out the Mastodon and perhaps most of human life in North America) and the Vela Supernova remnant, the years didn’t go together all that well. I had wide dates for the Supernova, which didn’t hit dead centre with the date I had for the extinction.

I had the extinction at 12400 years ago according to one source. And I had the supernova at 11,000 to 12,300 years. You see you really want the centre of both events to be approximately the same. And thats not really cutting it.

Vela was supposed to be only 800 light-years from us. So the consequences for earth, in accordance with the theory, would be most grievous.

Here is what the wikipedia says:

“The Vela supernova remnant is a supernova remnant in the southern constellation Vela. Its source supernova exploded approximately 11,000-12,300 years ago (and was about 800 light years away). The association of the Vela supernova remnant with the Vela pulsar, made by astronomers at the University of Sydney in 1968,[2] was direct observational proof that supernovae form neutron stars.”

If we take wikipeida’s range and add the two bands together and divide by two we get the figure of 11,650 years ago as their best guess, ignoring rounding errors.

Well I just got a quote for the extinction event. Would you believe some Scandinavian crowd have narrowed it down to a single date. 11,712 years ago? This I must still verify. Dead centre of Vela Supernova estimates. Could hardly be closer.

We are talking about the year 9703 BC. If true then this was a year of utter disaster. We cannot know just how advanced the human race was prior to then. All technological remnants would have been greedily cannibalised by the survivors with the exception of big rock structures.

What is more, this is almost the exact date now given for the end of the ice age. Round this down to the nearest century. You put “11700 years ago” in the google, you will now find all these links claiming that this was when there was an accelerated melting of the ice caps. An accelerated melting over about 60 years they reckon they’ve got it down to now. And good Lord why would there not have been? The initial gamma ray shock itself would have been just horrific.

We are also talking about when the North American meltwater lakes burst that is surely the cause of all the flood myths that have been handed down to us. Though I might check that one since the rough date is from memory. But it no longer looks like a gradual lake burst, starting off as a trickle and growing to several Amazons. No nothing like that. More like an explosion of water. Still I’m extrapolating wildly.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Policy-wise the situation is very clear. We need to think holistically. And its a question of three intersecting sets.

All policy programs must be of a nature that they reduce compulsion in total and reduce thieving in total. They may add a small amount of new stealing if the same program comes in tied to massive reduction in the old stealing. Revenue-neutrality is never acceptable. And its the same with compulsion. There would seem to be little excuse for any new compulsion, except perhaps something to do with new building standards. But even to get that over, the amount of old compulsion would have to be massively reduced.

Thats one intersecting set.

Then the next intersecting set is policies that make us less vulnerable to nuclear intimidation and more survivable under extended nuclear war.

And then the third intersecting set is policies that make us more survivable with regards to the full spectrum of natural disasters that I’ve shown that another supernova would throw at us.

We cannot possibly go after everything in all three sets as a matter of policy. We must leave most of it to the individuals. But anything in the region where the three sets meet……. Such measures must be prioritized with extreme prejudice. It must be a case of crisis and anti-Leviathan.

The Development Of Binary Star Systems.

One day if it doesn’t blow up first, Jupiter will become a star and its moons will progress to planets. During this time of course it would, if I am right, face the prospect of being culled by galactic centre explosions which would touch of supernovae and planetary explosions all throughout the galaxy. Where the shockwaves don’t cause problems this large they will lead to coronal explosions and volcanic activity.

So the moons of planet Jupiter, in this story, would become the planets of the star Jupiter. And Jupiter, if not pruned, would find for itself its own solar system.

That means our Sun was once a planet revolving, with other planets, around another star. And its likely that this planet, that became our sun, was a fellow planet to Alpha Centauri, and perhaps even the stars of the Sirius system.

Eventually each star gets its own solar system. OR DOES IT? As time has gone on the astronomers have found out that most of the stars come in pairs or multi-star systems. You can see how this would happen. Because if Saturn goes on to be a star, and Jupiter also survives to be a star, well its easy to understand that if they break free from our sun particularly,they could wind up revolving around eachother.

Now suspicions have arisen that we ourselves may be part of a binary star system. If this is the case we would spend long periods of time with a tranquil solar system. But when the two stars got close and subsequently revolved around each-other there would be much chance for catastrophe and disaster, as the planets of the other star got entangled with our own.

The binary star idea has got some wings. And if it is true one of the upshots may have been that Venus was once part of the other solar system. Venus doesn’t have a great deal of business being where it is. My view of the situation would be that Venus could not have grown to its current size under the conditions and in the position we see it in today. Other people for other reasons, see Venus as an interloper. I’ll have to find out WHY they think this. But its a common idea.

Just a word on my methodology here. I’m sussing out different paradigms, trashing some in total. Finding what parts of others I can be very sure off. Locking those tent-pegs in, and speculating, whilst keeping in mind those things which almost cannot be wrong.

So I’ve got part of Gaede’s system that almost cannot be wrong. Part of what Neal Adams is saying that almost cannot possibly be wrong. But not necessarily accepting every last thing they are saying. Note there is no time for the mainstream in any of this. I’ve also started listening to Paul Laviolette. I think everything he says is worth listening to.

This preliminary evaluation would imply of course that virtually all star systems will be binary or multiple star systems. In the same way that gas giants have many moons and solar systems have many planets. Where this is not the case we expect that:

1. A planet that has not yet developed to become a star will one day become that second star.

2. It was a multiple star system until one or other of the stars exploded.

3. Somehow the star managed to cut loose from its brother star and legitimately form its own solar system. I would think this last to be fairly uncommon.

I’ll write more if I find convincing evidence that we may be part of a binary system.

Fermi’s Paradox Again. The Picture Clears.

I’m serious about promoting this galactic shock-wave story. Because for one thing it will happen one day so lets get started now. And secondly it appears that there are people who need a doomsday scenario in their life to combat. Like someone has cut themselves slicing lemons. Its a little cut but they say it stings. You stomp on their toe, you say “Does it still hurt?” And if they claim it does really they are lying since their toe hurts more.

At least this galactic shockwave business isn’t proved wrong. Unlike the CO2-Emissions racket. So I see it as prudent and pragmatic to promote this other potential calamity. Since the CO2-Emissions calamity cannot happen.

I see the inevitability of culling via galactic shockwave, as an extension of the way planets grow. Ex-Moons like Mars will eventually grow to be like Earth. Earth-style planets will grow to be gas giants. A gas giant like Jupiter is destined to become a star. From what I can glean from how Neal Adams thinks about it, this works in smoothly with the expanding universe, accelerating in its expansion. I’m not really buying the smoothness of it, if this is indeed Neals view of the situation. Its doubtful to me that the universe is even accelerating in its expansion. Nothing in nature is ever quite that smooth.

If this growth all continued there would be a great deal of matter and not much space. So what we have with these shockwaves here is some pre-emptive pruning. The shockwave comes out and explodes a few planets and stars that are a little bit on the unstable side. Now we are getting an answer to Fermi’s paradox. Intelligent life will begin at the centre of small galaxies. But these guys will realise they cannot survive there. The movement has to be outward. Outward and to the fringes. Its in everyones interest to terraform to the outside of themselves, if they can do so in a set-and-forget way.

Hence we ought to expect that whilst evolution is part of the picture, we might be getting a little intermittant help from the outside as well. Not a great deal of help. The distances involved are way too large for that. But there can be little question that we would do the same if we were able. We would terraform the moons of Jupiter and Saturn with appropriate life for those conditions, if we could do so cheaply and in a set-and-forget manner. And if Jupiter or Saturn didn’t themselves get culled, they would eventually branch out and become their own solar systems. With their moons becoming planets.

To have everything expanding smoothly with the allegedly accelerating universe covering for all this growth, doesn’t sound like nature to me. Nature is a much more demonic and messy sort of thing.

The Shockwave Goes Faster Than The Gamma Rays.

From youtube.

Well I have found something of interest Bill. You see and earthquake ten times stronger then any other in 25 years was associated with a gamma ray burst 100 times more intense then anything measured. But the earthquake got here first!!! Hence the shockwave must have travelled just a tad faster than the gamma rays.

I was able to match up all milky way supernova’s with known disasters using this very assumption. I said the shockwave must move faster than light, because it is destroying some of the gaede-ropes it is moving along. I said that if it was travelling at light speed it would manifest itself AS LIGHT. And not cause volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. I said that it won’t travel a great deal faster, rather it would simply destroy more ropes if it had the energy to travel a great deal faster. I’ll give you the linkage between the supernova’s and the disasters. But there is a problem wherein the initial impulse is likely coming from the galactic centre. Since I’m assuming that nothing gets out of the galactic centre except for gamma and the shockwave. So you don’t see anything. But that this initial shockwave may be what sets off the supernova in the first place. I’ll go and get the linkages I imagine I’ve found.

“The eruption of Baitoushan volcano in 1054 was one of the largest eruptions in the world in the past 10,000 years.”

“On July 4, 1054 A.D., Chinese astronomers noted a guest star in the constellation Taurus.”

The volcano date is given variously. But the only source that is willing to narrow it to the year gives it as 1054.

“SN 1006 was a supernova, widely seen on Earth beginning in the year 1006 CE; Earth was about 7200 light-years away from the supernova. It was the brightest apparent magnitude stellar event in recorded history…”

“In AD 1006 a great catastrophe engulfed Java which reduced the capital city to ashes…”

“..Some four hundred years ago, in the upland region of southern Peru, a volcano named Huaynaputina exploded; catastrophically. It was February 19, 1600, and is recorded as the largest volcanic explosion in South America in historic times.”

This was an ongoing series of disasters 1600-1604. Here I would claim that the initial impulse which sets off the supernova, starts from the galactic centre.

“Scientists now believe that its eruption may have had societal and agricultural impacts worldwide.”

Thats a bit of an understatement. Elsewhere I read that it wiped out one third of the Russians due to famine.

“Supernova 1604, also known as Keplers Supernova…..”

But since here we are assuming a disaster period running 1600-1604 rather than a single disaster, I assume the initial impulse starts at the galactic centre, touches off a supernova elsewhere, and both effects reverberate to us. Hence the four year lead-time. Rather than just a couple of days.

The best date I got for the Lake Taupo explosion in New Zealand was 180 plus or minus six years.

“SN 185 was a supernova which appeared in the year 185, near the direction of Alpha Centauri, between the constellations Circinus and Centaurus. This guest star was observed by Chinese astronomers in the Book of Later Han,[1] …..”

So Lake Taupo explodes first. The Chinese see the supernova that caused it later on.

Two weaker examples. The first ever Taal eruption of 1572 matches up with the Supernova of that same year. A supernova in the Andromeda galaxy in 1885 matches up with Krakatoa in 1883. But this would imply I think that Andromeda is a bit closer than what we are told. And/Or the Gaede-ropes straighten more between galaxies allowing faster light-speed and shock-wave speed. Both propositions seem reasonable.

Well Bill. Thats it? What is your first impressions? I should also add that people are now claiming the dinosaurs were wiped out by volcanoes. This is missing the point. The supernova sets off the volcanoes. Explodes the planet which sets up the meteor. The gamma ray shows up. And the meteor hits 300 000 years later. Also a supernova was linked to the volcanoes that fused the Isthmus of Panama.

GUEST POST:Earth’s magnetic field is not produced by an internal dynamo within the planet

GUEST POST BY Dennis Brooks.

I like this particular essay. Because it is a theory that leaves no Gorilla’s sitting in the middle of the room that no-one wishes to talk about. This is how you do it. You cannot guarantee you are right. But as long as you can pretty much account for all the major know facts and shoo the Gorilla’s out of the room, then what will happen is three or four predictive templates will emerge, and then people will develop them in competition with each-other. Above all we must defeat the socialist-entrenched cult of the serial-monogamy of paradigms. The Brooks surname is gathering a bit of cache in this country. As Barry has not let his adoption of an incredibly naive climate model stop him from learning all aspects of the history and prospects of nuclear fission energy, and become the great local communicator on this score.

You can find the actual website of this essay via Google. But I will link it by and by.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am sending a news release regarding Earth’s magnetic field that you can use on your blog. Please consider using it. You can find images on my website.

Dennis

CRAM SCHOOL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Dennis Brooks
Phone: 1-808-566-0654
Email: dennisbroo@gmail.com

The New Theory: Earth’s magnetic field is not produced by an internal dynamo within the planet. The magnetic field and the planet are separate parts of a complex dynamo system surrounding the planet. The system includes the planet, the magnetic field, radiation belts, and ring current. The same is true of the other planets. Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus are visible components of otherwise invisible planetary dynamo systems, which are all housed within a magnetosphere. According to this new theory, there is no internal dynamo within the planet. Planet Earth does not have a unique way of producing it’s magnetic field. Nor do the other planets. Each magnetic field of each planet is produced in exactly the same way, by its planetary dynamo system.

Published By Dennis Brooks, 21 October 2009, Images By NASA, Copyright Applies

The Planetary Dynamo System is Even and Balanced
Summary:

A planetary dynamo system is composed of a complex network of components including a magnetosphere, a planet, a magnetic field, radiation belts, ring current, and charged particles from the solar wind. The planet is the central component of the system and it’s movements also play an important part in operating the dynamo and generating current. Planets that rotate fast usually have a stronger magnetic field, and planets that rotate slowly, have weaker magnetic fields. The dynamo system captures charged particles from the sun and uses them as fuel. The particles are moved into different areas of the system to perform different functions in fueling the dynamo. It’s the planet’s movement that helps to produce the system’s current.

The magnetic field is a separate component of the dynamo and is generated by the system’s ring current. Ring current is an impressive component of the dynamo system. It is made up entirely of charged particles and provides the energy necessary for producing the magnetic field. The magnetic field captures the charged particles from the solar wind, and brings them into the dynamo for fuel. All the components and forces work together to make up the planetary dynamo. Some researchers believe that a similar dynamo system exists within the planet and this internal dynamo system generates the current that produces the magnetic field.

Watch The Dynamo in Action

However, we know now that a magnetic field cannot be produced in earth’s outer core because of the intense heat. It’s simply too hot for a magnetic field to be produced and maintained there. Even if a dynamo could exist in such an environment, it would not last very long without a constant supply of quality fuel. Earth’s core simply cannot provide the fuel a dynamo system needs. If earth’s dynamo had to depend on energy from the planet for fuel, the entire planet would have been completely consumed many years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS FROM SITE DEITY.

Dennis appears to have a very full explanation of his theories which I have not yet read. The idea of a ring current I find intriguing. It was hard for me to visualise what was going on with the current. You see, we know that a magnetic field implies an electric current, always and everywhere. But we are used to a linear current. An electric current going along a wire. What the earth appears to be doing is absorbing electrons over most of its surface. I’m of course open to correction here. But it looked to me like pretty much everywhere, or at most places, electrons were being absorbed. So this departure from what we are used to (ie an electric current going along a single wire) threw me into at least a temporary mental overload.

QUESTIONS AROSE FROM MY INITIAL INVESTIGATION:

Part of my epistemology is to ask questions and continue the investigation with purposely maintaining my ignorance. Lets put it another way: That is to say, if one is new to a field, it is productive to overload everything you find out about the subject, with saturation induction, deduction, and crude model-building. That way as you become more knowledgeable, each new concrete fact you find out about the subject becomes an empirical test. And a chance to rank and re-rank the paradigms you are developing in parallel.

Lets rephrase that for clarity:

One doesn’t advocate ignorance. Rather one tries to apply a greater ratio of REASON AND MENTAL EFFORT, over the DENOMINATOR, of every quantity of data and factual knowledge, that one is in the process of gaining, then most everyone else.

For one thing its mentally healthy to be proved wrong about 100 times early on. And it is a worthy thing to have many paradigms on the fly and under consideration and development, even prior to knowing a great deal about the subject. Because then everything you find out in redundant fashion, becomes as valuable as the results of a new experiment that you yourself were able to commission.

The Questions THAT arose from my initial enquiry:

1. How does one apply the right-hand rule under this circumstance?

2. Did I have my facts right? Were electrons being absorbed by every, or almost every square metre of the globe? Or by the vastly greater percentage of the earths surface? or is in fact the absorption of these negative charges disproportionate to the absorption of positive charges AT THE EARTHS SURFACE as I am assuming?

3. Does the right-hand rule apply to the earths and each planets magnetic field? If so does not a TOTAL magnetic field reversal (as opposed to more flimsy variations and wanderings) imply a reversal in the rotation of the earth? Considering the dramatic consequences of such a reversal we better find out for sure, and develop all policy that does not contradict defense policy around this assumption. Since the advent of a reversal of the rotation of the earth would then become the greatest threat to us pronounceable with a human tongue.

4. I assume that the whole dynamic is driven by the incorporation of electrons into the centre of the nucleus of atoms……. in planets moons and stars, in rough proportion to the strength of that bodies magnetic field and the momentum at which it rotates. So what I think is happening is that if electrons are compressed and surrounded by Protons, and particularly protons that are not on the outer layer of the nucleus, then these electrons cannot convey their charge to the outer world.

Hence there is likely to be many more electrons compressed within atoms then almost anyone has heretofore imagined. So I’m assuming that this constant incorporation of shielded electrons, is causing an ongoing shortage of electrons. And what this is doing is driving the whole electromagnetic deal of planets and suns that are rotating and revolving around eachother.

5. Therefore where I see a strong magnetic field and fast rotation, I believe I’m looking at new matter creation, setting up a shortage of electrons and creating the dynamic which is driving the sun, the planets and indeed the galaxy entire.

6. I have not checked just how strong the planet Jupiters magnetic field is. But I happen to know that Jupiter is rotating with immense speed. And to me this implies prodigious new matter creation. A powerful electron shortage. And the implication is that Jupiter will progress from a gas giant to become a star, supposing the supply of electrons from the rest of the galaxy doesn’t dry up or supposing some massive galactic event that produces a gamma ray burst of immense proportions, doesn’t also produce a shockwave which causes Jupiter to explode.

7. Some folks imagine that gravity is merely part of this electro-magnetic dance. I don’t really see it that way. I do believe that light, electric currents and gravity are all conveyed via the same GAEDE-ROPE system. But note that objects that aren’t rotating fast, and that do not have a strong magnetic field, still have gravity. But to me gravity would be an affair which implies straight attraction, if not for all of this electro-magnetic dynamic. So I just assume a tendency of one body to fall into another if neither body has the electro-magnetic dynamic on the fly.

This last assumption could be horribly wrong. But it can be checked. Do we know of two bodies, without much in the way of a magnetic field that exist very close to eachother? In such a way as their gravity might simply pull one unto the other? If this doesn’t exist then it backs my theory. As most such relationships would have already been resolved via catastrophe.

8. Taking VENUS as a case study. Venus doesn’t rotate very fast. Venus is probably so hot as to be pretty much molten all the way through. Hence Venus cannot be involved with a great deal of new matter creation. How did it become so big in the first place then? It must have come from elsewhere, under this theory, and not have always had the current orbit around the sun that it now “enjoys”. What else can we say about Venus? Venus would certainly absorb a great deal of electrically charged particles from the sun. Given its thick atmosphere, Venus might be expected to translate these electrically charged particles into heat energy. Hence we may expect Venus to give out more heat than Venus receives. A lot more.

Clearly the above was formulated with the assistance of snatches of information here and there, and the assistance of rumours and rumblings. One doesn’t want to do the Einstein thing and set oneself up as a prophet.

But Dennis if you are out there. How about you raise the tone on this blog, and you show up and argue this matter point by point into the ground.

The LDP And Thoughts On Freedom/Giving A Quisling Control Of The Agenda.

LDP members have got to stop making the John Humphreys blog their main discussion group. This is akin to making Stalin the moderator of all discussion groups to do with the allied war effort. John Humphreys is a Quisling and an idiot. And though his influence due to his control of the blog, may be small in theory on a daily basis, its an insipid continuous influence, and clearly it is a substantial effect over time.

The name of John Humphreys blog is “Thoughts On Freedom”. Just ridiculous when you consider that this is the last thing on Humphreys mind. Humphreys has gone so far as to let bank communist Joseph Cambria write whole threads on this blog, and then shield him against criticism. Showing exactly which side of freedom he is on. And the analysis there is incredibly lame and anti-intellectual. Not reflecting of the older members of the party who are smart guys. And it is just going to bring the movement down.

Each one of you just has to stop doing this. Stop pretending that Humphreys is an OK representative of liberty. Stop allowing him to maintain the dominance of his idiocy and ignorance over the discussions. There is nothing that he has done that hasn’t been crude self-promotion. Its not as if he did any of the real work behind the party.

Someone ought to set up a Thoughts On Freedom Shadow site. And exercise a different moderation policy. And just basically try to draw off anyone good from commenting on the Humphreys Quisling show.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just to show what a harmful moron Humphreys is take the issue of old age pensions. I went to the RSL for lunch the other day. And all these pensioners were showing up. Not many of them looked like they could do powerfully well down at the local Centrelink. Humphreys came out in public, not for a decades-long weaning process of slowly bringing the pension age up. But instead for pulling the rug out underneath these old guys, and basically starving them off. Its pretty clear that this is where he was coming from. Since never has he put out a policy monograph which talked about mass-sackings of public servants. He has never attempted to make policy on the basis of revenue-neutrality. Yet suddenly the old guys have to be cut off.

The thread is just unbelievable for stupidity. But its much nastier when you realise that he has no intention ever of closing down public sector bureaucracies, that he’s a CO2-bedwetter who wants a carbon tax and doesn’t reckon a cap and kill will be all that bad. And that he expresses no intention of allowing a phasing approach when it comes to the old guys. How can giving a lunatic like this editorial control of the main discussion place NOT be a big problem.

Here is the economically ignorant Humphreys. He has to be seen to be believed.

http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/01/reminder-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/

Malcolm Turnbull Wins Over The Economically Illiterate John Humphreys.

We have enough here to see that Malcolm Turnbull’s atrocious cronyist cap and kill has been fashioned in such a way, as to win over the economicslly illiterate like John Humphreys. This is a bully-boy scheme, so fashioned as to appeal to the crudity and unreality of the feeble neoclassical mind. So after claiming tax substitution all this time, we can see that there is something in the air and that the ludicrous bigshot cartelization scam that Turnbull is running ,has turned the heads of the really stupid, Humphreys being the stupidest, of the Australian contingent of tribal rightist economics graduates.

Say it isn’t so. Prove that you aren’t won over. Put out a critique of the cap and kill, which I can see has clearly won you over. Soon has suddenly come out of hiding long enough to say that he doesn’t think the cap and kill will be all that bad. He’s wrong. He has no new argument in this regard. He does not know what he’s talking about. He hasn’t overturned anything that has been pointed out to him. The problem is that he doesn’t think at all. But this is not the real news of this story. What appears to have happened is that Turnbull’s moronic scam has turned these people on the matter.

I don’t know what can be done about this except to attack this stupid attitude before it hardens even with the slightly less stupid rightist economists. Humphreys has admitted that he supports the cap and kill now. He has claimed that it won’t do all that much harm. Humphreys is totally ignorant and irrational. But for some reason he appears to have become an opinion leader of sorts. If not some sort of building top rooster indicating which way the wind is blowing.

I’m going to simply accuse all these neoclassical morons as having had a change of heart thanks to Malcolm. And I”m going to try and demand that they justify Malcolms useless and ridiculous scam.

“Carbon Sequestration”:The TOTAL Impossibility Of Cost-Effective “Carbon Capture And Storage”

Modified From Elsewhere:

What an incredible transcript. Bravo to Senator Joyce and to Dr Moran. It seems that Dr Moran, as an economist, doesn’t see any necessity to shove science to one side. A true analyst.

” it would require the elimination of coal as a source of energy unless there is some cheap form of carbon capture and storage. There is no prospect of that on the horizon….”

There will never ever be any cost effective carbon capture and storage. The reason why this is impossible is that the energy that ought to be turning a steam turbine, will have to go into compressing the CO2, allowing its thermal energy to escape, and so much so as to make the CO2 a solid.

Supposing you have a compressor, and for the sake of argument we are just talking normal air. Suppose you take up the conversion efficiency at the point of mechanical work, being translated into potential energy in the form of compressed gas. And suppose you then translate it back into mechanical work. So we are going mechanical work, to compressed air and back.

That two step conversion is the most efficient energy conversion there is. It can be above 90%. But only under one condition. Only under the condition that you retain the heat energy along with the compression.

But the compression causes the temperature of the gas to rise. And thermal energy always goes in the direction of higher to lower temperature. Its inevitable then that you lose the heat energy.

There is no way you will be able to take that heat energy you are losing in this way and translate it into electricity or anything economically useful. Because the distribution of it will be too diffuse. We say that there is not much in the way of “heat flux density”. Or more generally energy flux density. Which is what you want always and everywhere to generate economically useful energy.

You want CONTRAST of heat or compression or voltage in a small volume in order to recruit it for useful human advantage. But this compressed CO2 is just going to leak warmth in a diffuse way. Not in any way that you can recruit the joules.

Now look at the problem from another angle. Look at it as if it was an electronic circuit. You have your coal burning, you are pumping the water in, the water is being turned from a liquid into a gas. This causes an immense pressure differential in a small volume so you can turn a turbine through a magnetic field creating an electric current. But supposing thats not the end of the chain!!!

If you want carbon capture and storage, you’ve got to further along the circuit, separate and compress your exhaust. If you look at this as being analogous to an electric circuit, a resistor in any part of the circuit must increase resistance in the circuit entire. The turbine only turns because at the point of the phase change of water from a liquid to a gas there is a massive pressure differential. But if you are pressurizing CO2 later in the process then obviously you have reduced the pressure differential at the point where the turbine turns.

If carbon capture and storage means compression, solidification and underground storage of CO2, we can say with total confidence that there will never be a cost-effective technical solution to it.

Therefore the government has committed 2.8 billion dollars for a technology that is inherently impossible. If they introduce compulsion in this matter it won’t be 2.8 billion it will cost us. Try 100 billion. Try any figure that accumulates until such time as we are recovered from this menace, and somehow have moved to saturation nuclear and ALSO some decades even after that.

Why do people just say, “we don’t want to talk about the science?” The phrase “carbon sequestration” is at least some evidence towards the proposition that the very stupid have become upwardly-mobile.

Please convey my comments to Dr Moran. He looks like someone who will understand immediately, supposing he hasn’t been dwelling on the impossibility of this proposition for a very long time.