Posted by: graemebird | April 14, 2014

Brainless Transvestite Sluts.

Hilarious.  This stupid transvestite has come up with an explanation as to why there is no aether and why gravity doesn’t propagate instantaneously.  In reality and quite apart from 20th century Jew Science Fraud …..  Gravity propagates instantaneously and we know this or all our orbits would unravel.  This property of gravity demands connection between all entities with mass either directly or indirectly.  We could assume that this connection IS the aether.  Secondly the reality is that light travels in waves.  Since a wave is what something does and not what something is this also demands an aether and more then likely the two phenomenon enjoy the use of the one aether.  All of this is obvious and could be no other way given what we know about gravity and light.

Now this entity.  This person.  This girly-man who does not know if it is a guy or a lady has made a comeback.  Its all a combination of irrelevancy and circular reason. But the real reason for the lady-boys double talk is that she must believe in this 20th century science fraud.  She can do no other.  Meanwhile this rubbish is excellent cover for covert operations hogging and monopolising of technology wherein no doubt they have concentrated discovering the MECHANISM FOR GRAVITY and not just gone on Jew Voo Doo or a religious appreciation for formulae.

You’ll love this fucking idiocy.

 

THERE IS NO AETHER  AND GRAVITY PROPAGATES AT THE SNAILSPACE SPEED OF LIGHT BECAUSE:

“The fun thing about Birdbrain is that he’s revealingly wrong about things which have been known problems with theories of light since the late 1500s; various solutions to this problem (such as ‘luminiferous aether’) were tried out from the time of Tycho Brahe onwards. The non-instantaneous propagation of gravity has a very similar analogue in the non-instantaneous propagation of light and the resulting effect of stellar aberration; the earth’s motion around the sun causes a small, systematic, annual variation in the apparent direction of starlight and was one of the pieces of evidence in support of heliocentrism over geocentrism. In the case of aberration, the earth’s motion causes a small angle between the direction from where the sun’s light appears to come from and its actual position – similar to the argument with gravity, that the sun’s gravity would be ‘pulling’ toward a place where the sun was, relative to the earth, about 500 seconds earlier, rather than where it is at the present time.

While this angle (about 20 arcseconds) is comparably easily detectable for light and was measured for the first time by Bradley in 1725, a similar effect for gravity is much less observable; but the presence of very large, concentrated masses (à la neutron stars) will greatly magnify the effect. Thus the energy lost by the binary pulsars results in the measurable contraction of the semi-major axis of their orbits. The dissipation of the energy in the form of gravitational waves is thus similar to the case of energy lost in emission of electromagnetic radiation, which is what Einstein was writing about in 1905.

Just as there had been attempts to explain aberration via means of an aether that allows propagation of electromagnetic radiation, Pierre-Simon Laplace had tried to argue that under similar conditions with a finite speed of propagation of gravity planetary orbits would not be stable, and since the planets haven’t spiralled into the sun, therefore the speed of gravity must be infinite; however Henri Poincaré showed (in the same year, 1905) THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT WITHIN RELATIVITY THEORY ……

…….(capitals inserted in this laughable piece of circular reasoning by site deity.)

In the solar system the gravitational effect that is ‘akin’ to stellar aberration is most noticeable in the motions of Mercury, but complicating the solar system dynamics are perturbations from other bodies, most notably Jupiter and Saturn. Birdbrain described this as ‘taking two to tango’ – a laughable over-simplification – but the solar system isn’t even truthfully an N-body problem; this conceals a mathematical conceit of reducing quasi-spherical bodies with uneven mass distributions, composed of upwards of ten to the power of forty particles, to point sources – which is an understandable simplification long honoured since the time of Newton; I remember grinding through the mathematical proof of Newton’s shell theorem as an undergraduate (grinding being the operative word) and I doubt Birdbrain would have the brainpower to appreciate the subtleties of the arguments, which are highly technical and mathematical. And that’s just to deal with the easy cases.

(In the real world I pointed out that one needs to know the make-up of the sun prior to explaining the mechanism of Mercury’s  odd orbit here, so the slut is essentially lying.  (site deity))

Nevertheless, provided you can find useful cases – binary pulsars are among the best nature has provided – the observations made turn out to be in striking accord with the mathematics derived under certain principles, and among those principles are that there is no such thing as an ‘aether’ – either for electromagnetism or gravitation – and that light and gravity propagate at the speed of light. We would quite possibly see different results if this were not the case – but we don’t. 14 significant figures (it might be more? Not that it matters hugely, since it’s an absurdly high level of precision…) say Birdbrain is utterly wrong.”

This moron needs to get a brain transplant, a slut tumor removal, figure out if she is a man or a lady, and decide to do real physics for the first time in her life.  Where has she shown me to be wrong?  Nowhere.  She’s just a fucking liar if she were to make that claim. My position remains uncontested by a logical argument to its disfavour.  But do you accept her explanation?

Whereas in reality if gravity were not for practical purposes INSTANTANEOUS then all the orbits would unravel.  So what is her explanation as to how gravity could propagate at only light speed?  The argument for this stupid point of view is entirely absent. And since over these vast distances instantaneous effects imply constant contact, which implies a connective aether ……..  Explain in your own words why this stupid transvestite slut is right?  Take what she has said and explain it in your own words.

She is just not that bright.  She cannot figure out if she is a man or a lady for one thing. Why oh why do such dim bulbs try it on?


Responses

  1. I challenge ANYONE to find a relevant logical argument in there. If this girly-man wants to play lumberjack she has to “learn to handle her end of the log.” So where is her logical argument against any of my claims.

    Just another stupid goose-stepping he-bitch.

  2. Consider this you dopey third parties. This is an entity that was educated in mainstream physics. And she (he…. it ….) cannot form a valid argument against anything I’ve said here. So do you see the enormity of the fucking scandal? This is a religion based on deliberate misinformation. She has no reason to believe what she has been taught. She simply believes. As we can see when it comes to her inability to make an even glancing refutation of any claim I’ve made.

  3. Look at the following quote for her stupidness:

    “Just as there had been attempts to explain aberration via means of an aether that allows propagation of electromagnetic radiation, Pierre-Simon Laplace had tried to argue that under similar conditions with a finite speed of propagation of gravity planetary orbits would not be stable, and since the planets haven’t spiralled into the sun, therefore the speed of gravity must be infinite; however Henri Poincaré showed (in the same year, 1905) that this argument no longer is valid within relativity theory.”

    We can shorten this because she is trying to make some sort of argument from an allegedly parallel problem. So I’ll shorten it and you can read it agaqin:

    “Pierre-Simon Laplace had tried to argue that under similar conditions with a finite speed of propagation of gravity planetary orbits would not be stable, and since the planets haven’t spiralled into the sun, therefore the speed of gravity must be infinite.”

    The slut cannot even get Laplaces argument right. The argument is that the planets would have all left the solar system. No question about that at all.

    The reality is that Laplace was completely right. And any argument contrary to Laplace is manifestly fraudulent and irrational. The vague argument she is trying to make (even as she tries to misrepresent Laplace) is actually what these frauds try on every time. They talk about an anomaly of light for awhile, and then segway back to gravity!!!!! As if they expect to get away with this.

    The subject is gravity. And gravity must be instant in its propagation or else the orbits would unravel. As Laplace correctly points out. Not spiral into the sun. But get larger and larger until the solar system had broken up.

    So being as gravity is manifestly instantaneous …. this means that there must be constant contact and that gravity is a PULL-FORCE to do with tension. Gravity cannot be produced by a volley of particles. Even push-gravity is impossible but if you are addicted to a particle physics perspective, as I was, you may find yourself spending hour upon fruitless hour attempting to make push-gravity work.

    If gravity wasn’t instantaneous and if all entities with mass weren’t connected to every other …. the forces of inertia would lead to orbits getting bigger and bigger until all the galaxies broke up. Each star would go off in random fashion and with many collision each galaxy would expand and the whole thing would go into disorder. There could be no flat spiral galaxies or solar systems being sustained under this idiocy.

    Now go back, interrogate that lying slut, and don’t take that ridiculous preamble about electricity for an argument. Its a not argument. Its the same one they always use. Its the usual fraudsters sleight of hand.

    Laplace was correct. And there is just no non-fraudulent way of getting around this.

  4. Okay here goes the setup for this fraudulent sluts sleight of hand:

    “The non-instantaneous propagation of gravity has a very similar analogue in the non-instantaneous propagation of light ………”

    No no you stupid slut. Its NOT an analogue. Its a fraudulent distraction. Now imagine she had just stayed on gravity? Then what was her argument? Every one of these frauds does this without exception. There is no analogue. She just sets up a dishonest distraction.

    What a fucking tramp.

  5. Ignore her rambling about light. And someone point out her argument to do with gravity? Also ignore her lying about what Laplace claimed to confuse everyone. Laplace knew full well that finite speeds of gravity would lead to each orbit getting much larger every year.

  6. 1. She’s lying about what Laplace claimed. Laplace claimed if gravity propagated at finite speeds the orbits would keep getting larger. Which of course they would. But putting that aside for a moment.

    And put another thing aside. Put her whole preamble on light aside. These science frauds always start with a preamble on light, when they want to lie about gravity. So put these two aside and can someone tell me what was the argument she made about gravity? What was her argument? In fact she has no argument about gravity. Without the deceptive preamble to do with light and not gravity, and without her confusing people about Laplace, she has no argument.

    But if you think I’m wrong you tell me what the frauds argument is about gravity?

    2. ” Pierre-Simon Laplace had tried to argue that under similar conditions with a finite speed of propagation of gravity planetary orbits would not be stable….”

    This much of what the fraud said was correct. Laplace DID argue this. And of course he was right. So where is the frauds argument AGAINST Laplace? We have an irrelevant preamble to do with light that is NOT an analogue (she and the others always go in for this lie) and then what do we have? Nothing.

    If you don’t believe that she has no argument MAKE HER ARGUMENT IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You will find she does not have one.

    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    14 April 2014 at 2:52 am (UTC -5)
    Birdbrain:

    Aberration of light.

    Aberration of gravity

    Same thing.

    287

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 2:54 am (UTC -5)
    There are two forces in the universe. Push and Pull. And we know that gravity is a pull force. All pull forces rely on constant contact of some sort. Now. Could it not be that gravity is rather no force at all. But a bending in space. Hang your head in shame if you ever fell for this science fraud. And while you are hanging your head in shame look at your lap and consider the force of gravity between your girly-men asses and your chair. There is no space to bend between your ass and the chair. And yet you can feel the force of gravity acting on you and leaving the equal and opposite force of your ass pressing against the chair. No bending of space need apply for consideration as an explanation. Look just how stupid are you people?

    So we know from your contemplation of your own ass that gravity is no bending in space as the science fraud Jew Albert said. That would be double dipping once you have considered the situation re your own girlyman-asses.

    But then we know that space doesn’t bend simply because to bend you must change shape. To change shape you must have shape. And only objects have shape. So its lies and fraud all the way around.

    288

    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!
    14 April 2014 at 2:56 am (UTC -5)
    haroldlloyd:
    Take your bigotry somewhere else.

    289

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 2:57 am (UTC -5)
    “Aberration of light.

    Aberration of gravity”

    No no you are lying. They are not the same thing. And notice you frauds ALWAYS have to go with the light preamble to confuse people. You can never make the argument straight. So what is your argument for gravity propagating at the speed of light. You are just a thickhead and a liar.

    We know for a fact that gravity cannot propagate that slowly or else all our orbits would unravel. They would get massively larger every year. But you have no argument against this. So you always start with the light preamble to lie to the public.

    290

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 2:58 am (UTC -5)
    Get fucked Tony. I’ll keep my hatred of racist crime gangs right where it is.

    291

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:01 am (UTC -5)
    Come on you thickheads. Admit that Lapalace was right and undeniably so. Or else what is your argument? Don’t try this argument by phoney analogue on again. Every fraud always uses that same formula. Argue the case for gravity straight up.

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:04 am (UTC -5)
    Okay lets go. Finish this sentence ….. Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……

    Now one of you goosesteppers take over. But for goodness sakes don’t talk about light when the subject is gravity.

    292

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:04 am (UTC -5)
    Okay lets go. Finish this sentence ….. Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……

    Now one of you goosesteppers take over. But for goodness sakes don’t talk about light when the subject is gravity.

    293

    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    14 April 2014 at 3:05 am (UTC -5)
    We know for a fact that gravity cannot propagate that slowly or else all our orbits would unravel. They would get massively larger every year. But you have no argument against this. So you always start with the light preamble to lie to the public.

    This is abso-fucking-lutely meaningless. Why would orbits get larger? The value of the gravitational attraction doesn’t change—the source position is just retarded slightly depending on distance. This is why orbits would precess even in the absence of perturbations from other bodies. Witness the binary pulsar. Any other bodies in that system would certainly be negligible in mass (since both stars exploded as supernovae, there almost certainly aren’t any). Yet the orientation of their orbits precess. Rapidly. Newtonian instantaneous-gravity theory predicts they wouldn’t precess. At all. Game, set, match.

    294

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:07 am (UTC -5)
    Start with this:

    Finish this sentence ….. Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……

    295

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:09 am (UTC -5)
    The direction of force would be not where the object is NOW, but where it was when the light first left the sun and got to the planet Neptune. If you are too stupid to figure out that this means a growing orbit you ought not be part of this discussion. But really you are just hoping that the others are that stupid.

    Now quit your fucking dishonesty and make the argument.

    Finish this sentence ….. Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……

    299

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:14 am (UTC -5)
    I’ve dealt with this crowd before. They always lie and try and set up distractions when third parties are around. But often when they think they are not amongst mixed company they will talk in a completely different fashion.

    Finish this sentence ….. Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……

    (You watch. I won’t be able to shame these people into a straight answer or a valid argument. )

    Laplace was wrong BECAUSE ……..

    300

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:15 am (UTC -5)
    How about you Tony? Finish this sentence:

    Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……

    (notice the physicist frauds dragging their feet. They will not present their ideas in terms of straight arguments.)

    302

    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    14 April 2014 at 3:19 am (UTC -5)
    Also. “Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……” Nothing can act instantaneously. Any faster-than-light propagation of matter or energy would allow signaling into the past, violating causality.

    303

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:21 am (UTC -5)
    “The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    14 April 2014 at 3:19 am (UTC -5)
    Also. “Gravity does not act instantaneously BECAUSE ……” Nothing can act instantaneously. Any faster-than-light propagation of matter or energy would allow signaling into the past, violating causality.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You moron. What were we saying about circular reasoning? You just invoked the science fraud Albert Einsteins mindless dogma’s as an argument. No sorry. Light travels at c speed. Not at infinite speed.

    Try again.

    304

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 3:24 am (UTC -5)
    How does constant contact between objects with mass violate causality. You must be the most stupid person on the internet. If you tie a ball to a tree and throw the ball does this violate causality? No of course not. Having an aether explains gravity. It does not violate causality. Science frauds like Albert Einstein and yourself are always violating causality. But everything with mass being connected to everything else with mass is hardly a violation of causality.

    Try again.

    334

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:19 am (UTC -5)
    Not everything these people say is wrong. But most of it seems to be. So I’d be willing to believe that they can get these closer distances right if someone could come up with a valid mechanism for measuring these distances.

    335

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:21 am (UTC -5)
    “Oh fabulous! I’m off to bed now, but I hope to wake up to subsequent comments from you with extensive citations to these refutations.”

    Citations? Ho ho. Jew-Science in mimicry of Rabbis arguing about the arguments of Rabbis arguing about the arguments of other Rabbis. It is the logic of special relativity that is wrong and childish. No citation can add or subtract from that reality.

    336

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:23 am (UTC -5)
    ” The time dilation and mass increase predicted by Special relativity are precisely borne out. ”

    Yes of course they are. And we note with interest that they are not about to let me into audit them anytime soon. This is science fraud remember.

    337

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:26 am (UTC -5)
    There was this fellow who encoded a Mozart tune into a microwave signal and he clocked it at three times the speed of light for 17 cm. Once he had done so and the science mafia had gotten to him he then had to make the claim that the tune had gone through a “‘quantum wormhole” so that the oligarchical (I usually say Jew-science) science could be blessed indirectly. Else he would have been booted out or worse.

    Superluminal speeds are routine in labs around the world today. But the fix came down circa about 2003 and so they had to be pretty low-key about them after that.

    338

    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    14 April 2014 at 4:27 am (UTC -5)
    In fact, the oblateness due to rotation is the main mechanism by means of which neutron stars low down their rotation with time.

    Here’s a good discussion of the observations. And here’s the elements. The distance is 21,000 light years, measured by parallax. Remember with very-long-baseline interferometry, we can measure parallax for radio sources much farther away than stars with visual light.

    339

    rorschach
    14 April 2014 at 4:31 am (UTC -5)
    This is either the worst troll ever, or there is some underlying mental problem. I suspect the latter. So maybe we should not entertain it.

    340

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:32 am (UTC -5)
    Thanks. Great post. I mean it. I’m not having you on. Indeed parallax ought to be considered a verified proxy. Unlike red shift. Or at least very close to one. Usually you need three proxies minimum but parallax appears to be such a good proxy insofar as the logic of it is concerned that we may waive that general rule in this case.

    341

    Rob Grigjanis
    14 April 2014 at 4:34 am (UTC -5)
    haroldlloyd @287:
    There are two forces in the universe. Push and Pull.
    Is this you on your path to wisdom?

    342

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:38 am (UTC -5)
    To my way of thinking spin rate comes right from the time that the now super-dense star (you would say neutron star) was a planet like Jupiter. In that situation Jupiters spin rate keeps increasing as it robs the momentum of comets and converts that into its own angular momentum.

    But surely comets would be coming from the other direction? And surely this would slow Jupiters angular momentum down? Well yes but those are the kind of comets we only tend to see once. And the other comets we will see many times. So this is why planets rotate, and why Jupiter has this massive angular momentum.

    My interpretation of the slowing down of the spin rate of the “neutron star” (I would say super-dense start) is different from yours. I would say that it is still gaining mass ….. (remember growing earth theory) but it is not gaining spin rate from comets or stars acting like comets in its vicinity.

    You are not really doing science unless you are willing to step outside of your own favoured paradigm (I would say religion) and look at the other fellows paradigm and how it fits together.

    343

    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    14 April 2014 at 4:39 am (UTC -5)
    Special Relativity involves only two axioms; everything else follows from them:

    1) There is no preferred frame of reference.

    2) The speed of light is the same for all observers.

    Everything in SR follows by very simple arithmetic from these two axioms. Which one do you deny? The second one has been verified to extreme precision since Michelson-Morley, remember, so it must be the first.

    344

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:41 am (UTC -5)
    “Is this you on your path to wisdom?”

    Let me improve upon that then. Two categories of force. Push and pull. But sub-categories within those two. Whereas PUSH CAN-BUT-NEED-NOT imply a volley of particles ….. PULL always and everywhere implies constant contact no exceptions.

    345

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:45 am (UTC -5)
    “1) There is no preferred frame of reference.

    2) The speed of light is the same for all observers.”

    Yes. Complete bullshit. And very misleadingly worded. In fact the original observations this bs was based upon constitute a refutation of this dogma. The data fits much better with the “partially entrained aether hypothesis.”

    Or even with Lorentz-relativity. But Lorentz being a good Jew, deep-sixed his own ideas tendentiously, in order to pull off the tribal cult. Lorentz was a very good scientist. In terms of sheer brain power. But not in terms of intellectual honesty, because he ended up going along with the crime gang in denial of his superior ideas.

    346

    haroldlloyd
    14 April 2014 at 4:48 am (UTC -5)
    If not for science fraud we could have had the Lorentz version of relativity competing with the partially-entrained aether theory and we could have pitted them together as the data came in. And then we may have gotten to the bottom of things. But instead of Lorentzian and Aether science we started force-feeding sugar-water to the children.

  7. You’ve really put me in my place by your oh-so-intellectual arguments, darling! Let’s see… it was a whole lot of scientific hogwash, larded with familiarities such as:
    “Brainless Transvestite Sluts.”
    “This stupid transvestite…”
    “Now this entity. This person. This girly-man”
    “the lady-boys double talk”
    “…a slut tumor removal…”
    “Explain in your own words why this stupid transvestite slut is right?”
    “Just another stupid goose-stepping he-bitch.”
    “The slut cannot even get Laplaces argument right.”
    “No no you stupid slut.”
    “What a fucking tramp.”

    What a sweety you are, Birdiekins. But I wonder if you’re not holding back your true feelings about me. Please let me know what you really think.

    Yours in anticipation,

    Xanthë, ‘fucking tramp’ xxx

    • Filthy Khazari Ho.

      • Ooh, you’re a charmer too.

        Kiss kiss

        X

  8. Give me your evidence for light-speed propagation of gravity you dim bulb. What a fucking moron you are. And you ran with the same dishonest sleight of hand as they always do. What a mindless goose-stepping loser you are.

  9. Why claim I”m wrong when you cannot make that argument. You dumb slut. Don’t be typing cheques with your fingers that your brain cannot cash.

  10. Well you have to hand it to her. She has a bit of a sense of humour. Knowing that guys confronted by a cross-gender personality tend to be somewhat grossed out by faux-affection. Its her take on science that I find despicable and mystifying. How can it be that people go on believing this shiite, in the face of the reality that we can interpret so much about the mechanisms of light and gravity by what is commonly understood about these two phenomenon?

    This is what Jew science has done to us. Its replaced mechanisms with Jew concepts, attached to higher maths. For these people its more important to get the numbers right on the speed at which a (non-existent) photon travels from whereever it happens to have been created ex-nihilo …. Then it is to own up to the reality that the photon doesn’t exist, and if it did it would have no good cause to hate where it was created so badly it wished to escape with such despatch.

    Something in their confused brains has been severed. They cannot even see the sense in explaining real down to earth potential mechanisms. Or trying to see if there are larger versions of the mechanisms that work out in the macro world.

    The battle-axe bitch of all know-nothings posted a link to a ludicrous paper by the Jew science fraud Albert Einstein. Incestuous fraudulent fuck, racist, and person of bad character that he was. I shall soon critique this paper. Although I’ll likely make a hash of the rough copy.

    Also the Battle-Axe of all know-nothing bitches posted a link to a couple of super-heavy objects rotating around eachother. I’ll have a few words to say about this Jive and the Crab-Nebula. Although not everything these people are saying is entirely wrong or unfounded. Just most of it.

  11. Its good news that PZ hasn’t mentioned my name or put me down while he’s been wiping my posts. Maybe he has learned his lesson. I backed him on the Shermer issue since basically he had no other ethical choice. Its not about whether he had certain knowledge. It was about making a balanced judgement, and I went to work all over the place sticking up for PZ.

    And Shermer looks like he needed a good stiff warning. Shermer was acting like a “made man” thinking he could get away with anything, so long as he had a legal alibi. Although the spectre of feminist bullshitartistry could well have been part of the picture. Anyhow no-one went to bat stronger for PZ then I did.

    I suggest that PZ should wipe his preamble to the thread he dedicated to me four years ago. I suggest he should keep the thread but wipe his unfair and aggressive attack on me. Because I never laid abuse on him and I always was open-minded towards him prior to that. Plus he’s audited the thread to cut out my totally stomping him on the basis of his mindless Keynesianism. And that is not really fair either. I mean I, as a person from an economics background, made total mincemeat out of PZ. And yet the record is not there.

    If PZ is watching he ought to go along with my minimal demands.

    It will hurt if he doesn’t. Four years on I don’t forget until there is a sign of some sort of mitigatory action. .

  12. “The fun thing about Birdbrain is that he’s revealingly wrong about things which have been known problems with theories of light since the late 1500s; various solutions to this problem (such as ‘luminiferous aether’) were tried out from the time of Tycho Brahe onwards.”

    History has buried this genius. When the Jew-Voo-Doo science is defeated this fellow will be a household name like Newton. And actually Newton is not what he is made out to be and may well fade to a secondary character.

    What I find fascinating about this gentleman is that he actually induced Mercury-based brain damage to increase his creativity and his ability to think laterally. We have Mercury damaged people in society that are barely employable (I sort of assume I’m amongst them). We have all these Mercury-damaged people with autism, aspergers, and ADHD and yet so many of them have strange but inconsistent brain-powers that would seem to encourage us to adopt the Lloyd Pye paradigm.

    But Tacho actually went out of his way to damage his brain that he may gain more insight. Although to be more truthful he may not have interpreted what he was doing in the way I have just done so.

    There are theories that he was poisoned. But another theory says that he was at a social gathering. And he needed to take a leak. But he as the host, didn’t want to let the crowd down by abandoning everyone while he went to take a piss. That sort of attitude not a million miles away from the stuck on stupid obsessiveness that mercury poisoning might lead one too. Anyhow in this scenario his bladder burst. And that is how a REAL SCIENTIST ….. not a Jew science fraud … was alleged to have died.

    • Fuck Sir Isaac Fucking Jewton. Fuck the Khazari Gravity Mafia.

      There I said it.

  13. Well well well. Tachos body was exhumed. And his fingernails were tested for Mercury. The Mercury level was enough to poison him outright. So the new thinking is that he was murdered.

    In that era there was the Venetian Republic attempting to monopolise on science.

    As far as this fellow is concerned there is no way these guys can predict when a moon, a planet, or a star can explode. He’s got that wrong. Because he believes in this crude fusion version of the way stars work.

  14. Dirty Venetian Bastards.

  15. I tried to post this one but it looks like he has managed to block me good and proper this time:

    After ignoring the he-bitches rambling to do with light (this is the standard distraction technique) and ignoring her lie about Laplaces argument ….. can anyone in your own words find an argument for her take on gravity? She thinks ( or lies and claims she thinks … it is hard to imagine someone that stupid) that gravity propagates at light speed. Whereas a moments reflection tells us that this is a lie. That gravity propagates instantaneously or orbits would all grow precipitously larger. Especially those which are already large. Now no-one can deny this. You could get out a piece of paper and draw a few diagrams to make sure you can visualise this. But it ought to be so obvious that even a Jew ought to be able to understand it. Its actually a known fact. Its known by everyone. Some physicists just choose to lie about it.

    Early in the twentieth century many well connected people knew the fix was in. For example HG Wells talked about how a science dictatorship would be set up. No-ones been allowed to have heretical science views for many decades now. And they are not merely science views. They are just reality. Not even needing more data, or research. They are just facts that you are not allowed to advocate. Its as if they had locked in a taboo on the idea that the heart is a pump. The worst tragedy in history, objectively speaking, was Jewish emancipation. This was letting a crime gang out of its box. Mass murder followed in short order after this terrible terrible crime against humanity.

  16. From Elsewhere:

    “Smoker you may wish to frame the data in terms of alternative hypotheses. I mean if you went with the periodic terraforming hypothesis …. and how about putting that up against the selective-pressure-alone hypothesis …. and the data we are considering is the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion confounded Darwin at the time and is a bit of a mystery for his true believers even to this day.

    You think that the evidence is overwhelming. But you may be working with only one paradigm at a time. In science we want at least 3 paradigms in parallel when we are considering any sort of data.

    I certainly think natural selection is a big part of the historical story. But it seems moronic to rule out two types of panspermia, and pretend this is a one-planet story. Plus while evolution has a lot going for it, so long as we aren’t too dogmatic about the specific type of evolution ….. The big bang theory has NOTHING going for it. This is utter rubbish and a young-universe creation myth.

    If the universe is a trillion to the power of a trillion years old then even a life-long atheist cannot rule out the emergence of supreme being or a localised supreme being or any permutation of supremacy.

    But since it turns out to be surprisingly easy to live in space, we might expect terraforming as the norm and not the exception. The main problem with PZ Myers and a lot of the other dogmatic Darwinists is that they aren’t really scientists. They are bigoted and blinkered bully-boys. 
    Show less

    GMBCATASTROPHE4:29 PM

    PZ Myers …. in ridiculing adversaries who he should have been learning from …. He repeated the word COMPLEXITY maybe 30 times and it got a lot of laughs. He was trying to say that his opponents were a one-argument outfit. But if its their one argument its a good one IN THE CONTEXT OF A BIGOTED ONE-PLANET version of evolution.

    I don’t think even scientifically-minded Christians have any grasp of the complexity of the cell. Not just the DNA. But the cell. It is said that some humans have created a new organism via genetic engineering from scratch. This is nonsense because all that they created was the DNA. Not the hyper-complex cell itself.

    The early planet earth had no sort of capacity to lead to this sort of complexity in my view. To me the sort of environment that could eventually lead to this complexity would seem to exist on near the ring of fire. But the early earth didn’t have the ring of fire or the deep oceans. “

  17. I’ll clarify what I’m saying above. I think that viruses (with their RNA) can probably be created in the water vapour in the tail of comets, given the electrical differences involved. But one needs to go further then that for life as we know it. We need to have a complex cell carrier for DNA. Even more information-packed then the DNA in the centre of this cell. For that you need a long gestation period that will of its nature be so situation that complexity is increased all the time. Land-based life and life in the photic-zone of the ocean are not cut out for increasing complexity at the cellular level. Natural selection ought to actually DECREASE the information embedded in the gene pool. There has to be a different sort of environment where cellular complexity naturally grows and this has to then be transplanted to the photic zone of the ocean, and on to the landed animals. The problem is that our earth 300+ million years ago didn’t have these zones where we would expect this increasing complexity or at the very least we didn’t have a great volume of these zones.

    So I’m a believer in natural selection. But natural selection ON LAND AND IN THE PHOTIC ZONE is where complexity ought to be systematically reduce and not increased. So going on that basis I think we can say that evolution is not a one-planet affair.

  18. I used to talk to Lloyd Pye all the time. Only for a short period of a few months. But often during that time period. Lloyd had foisted upon him evidence of alien genetic meddling from about a millenium ago. This was totally proven quite apart from the systematic lies of the usual suspects. Just at about the time when the reality of this was about to become undeniable ….. Lloyd seems to have been assassinated by the usual fast-acting cancer.
    When you are a fatty they shoot you with a frozen bullet that induces a heart attack when it melts. When you are slim they get you with the fast-acting cancer. Lloyd was in good shape. Unfortunately he sought chemo-therapy and the fact is that he basically had to take a vow of poverty when he took up his crusade for the truth. So he didn’t have the finance to go for some of the better cancer treatments and he probably stooged himself that it wasn’t a hit.

    With what I have in the house now I can deal with the fast-acting cancer. But I don’t yet have a solution to the heart attack hit. Well not a cost-effective one anyway. Probably these assholes would hit me with a mugging that would turn out to be fatal. I’d like to think I could collapse the throat of at least one of them if so. But likely I’m fooling myself.

    • I always thought dear old Adolf had a point when he said the Hebrews were an alien race.

      Turns out he was more correct than I ever suspected.

      • Is it possible Mr B that Jew DNA was created in the tale of a comet and then implanted in Humans. That would explain a lot.

    • “But likely I’m fooling myself.”

      You’ve been doing that for years…. about everything.

      • You are such a dummy fella. You still believe that comets are “icy wanderers?” How is this faith-based approach working for you? Does it make you happy? To be that fucking dumb?

  19. Are raw milk and alkali water the Weapons we need to take down the Hebrew Usurpers / Gravity Mafia?

  20. We need them just to get by, while we watch the last parasite fall.

  21. “I always thought dear old Adolf had a point when he said the Hebrews were an alien race.”

    Dear old Adolf may have excited many wonderful vibes in you. But the fact is he was a Jew working under deep cover And that closest that Jew got to being an alien was driving on the autobahn.

  22. Lloyd Pye was a dopey dipshit, just like you Bird.

    • No no. You are a dopey dipshit. Just remember all your ideas are faith-based. All of them. None of them are your own. Big bang believer that you are. What a ridiculous cunt you are. You actually believe that proven wrong rubbish with no evidence to be found for it ANYWHERE.

      Its much more interesting to NOT take a faith-based approach and to show an interest in many theories.

      Ralph Ellis thinks that this bloke is the character that inspired the Jesus character:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_ben_Gamla

      Its an interesting theory. Its not something I actually believe in because I don’t take a faith-based approach. Whereas you and everyone at the Myers blog ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION take a faith-based approach.

      • What do you mean by “faith based”? I’m an atheist, I don’t take anything on faith, only evidence. It’s impossible to discuss anything with you rationally because you have a habit of butchering the english language with your childish dipshit prattling.

        Have you still got all that silver you “invested” in?

  23. What do you mean by “faith based”? I’m an atheist, I don’t take anything on faith, only evidence. It’s impossible to discuss anything with you rationally because you have a habit of butchering the english language with your childish dipshit prattling.

    Have you still got all that silver you bought?

    • Most of it yes. Its a rigged market. So even though we would normally expect it to go up to maybe 70 dollars an ounce, well its not a market-based phenomenon we are talking about.

      • Didn’t you spend around $40K on it @ $40 per ounce? Now it is around $20. You messed up there, but who knows, you might make a profit in 10 years. So was it a rigged market before you got into it, or did that happen only after you wasted all that money?

      • I got it at about 31. But sure. Thats the way it goes. Its a rigged market and the usual criminals are able to keep the price repressed a helluva lot longer then you would think was possible. I just have to do things in ways that will cover me no matter what.

        What happens is that they keep on skinning people who don’t take delivery. But people who do take physical delivery are sort of bled out over the long haul. They must know when a lot of dudes are assuming that the price surely cannot come down below $26. But all people who are making bets on that basis can be fleeced because they’ve set up all these margin calls. So its a periodic fleecing of these guys in the paper market.

        But people are tempted into the paper market because there is no trading fee to speak of. And no holding costs. No fashioning costs. All of these markets ought to be abolished. Derivative markets are a menace.

      • I took delivery. I didn’t get stung by a margin call. But a fellow I met in Thailand who was making a good living on paper silver may well have got stung. Because at about the time the market took this huge hit I found out he was going back to England. Taking his Thai wife and three mixed daughters back with him. Its the periodic fleecing of people like this fellow which makes this endless price suppression possible.

  24. All your beliefs are faith-based. Ask yourself why you think Phobos is porous. Though no geological process could ever get a rock that side that was effectively “pumice” orbiting in that way.

    Ask yourself about any of your beliefs. You will find they are all faith-based. Its incredible the nutcases like you and all those dopes at the Myers blog. You can never have the slightest independent opinion-formation in the slightest.

  25. How do you ever get away with your belief that there is no aether? That is a faith-based delusion right there.

    • The Dopey Hebrew also thinks that Comets are snowballs when actually they are packed with Jew DNA straight from the Bowels of HELL.

      • I wonder if Bird even realises that you are just trolling him for laughs. Well Graeme?

  26. Fuck off Woppy.

    • I’d love to know which one of the Catallaxy regulars you are RPH. Graeme, who do you suspect he is?

      • Go have a Bacon Double Cheeseburger, you filthy Hebrew.

  27. Graeme
    Helen was recently in Sydney and I caught up with her. she may have gone home now, but who knows she may return. Like me she is worried about you and wishes you well. Peace be with you, man and please get over your terrible hatreds and obsessions. Perhaps you might be better the next time she’s here again

    • Chinky-Chinky Chinaman.

    • I also concur with Genghis, you need to calm down about your hatreds and obsessions. I also wish you well Bird.

  28. Birdy, I second the comments of Genghis. You’re a great bloke who has been totally diverted by a bunch of nonsense.

  29. Stop talking shit Cambria. And don’t drag your woppy ass over here to condescend to me. You are getting above yourself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: