BROUGHT TO THE FRONT BECAUSE MYSTIFYINGLY THE STATS ARE GOING HOG WILD ON THIS STORY. I’M NOT COMPLAINING. I GUESS WE MAY HAVE PIERCED THAT DARK AGES FOG AND THE KIDS BE GETTING INTERESTED IN SCIENCE AND REASON AFTER ALL THAT OTHER JIVE HAS LET THEM DOWN, AND LEFT THEM DOWN, AND LEFT THEM FEELING DOWN AND UNDERWHELMED. I’M THINKING IT WAS THE CHILDRENS STORY OF THE THREE BARRY’S THAT MUST HAVE FINALLY DONE IT. SOMETIMES YOU’VE GOT TO TRY A DIFFERENT TACK. INNOCENT FABLES AND CHILDRENS STORIES TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE WORLD OF SCIENCE AND REASON.
This is not just the unscientist Ian Fisk talking. I’ve been getting this constantly everywhere I’ve been attempting to alert third parties to the unscientific nature of the Big Bang, Special Relativity and all that other superstitious JIVE.
No wonder these boneheads are screwing things up so badly. They don’t have a clue what science is yet they are pulling government-tit paychecks.
Its important to understand that all habitual defenders of special relativity really are thickheads. Each and every one of them. Take the following exchange:
1.Its your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.
Like if the light is chasing me at 300 000 km per second and I’m moving at 200 000 km per second then its supposed to be catching me at 300 000 km per second. Which is a load of rubbish.
2.Your time has slowed down, your ruler will be shortened the direction of your travel, so to you light catches you at 300,000 km per second, but not to a so-called stationary observer watching it.
To bad you can’t and/or will not get your brain around it.
3. No my time would not have slowed down. We are just talking rubbish theory is all.
4.Sorry, but it is you that is just talking rubbish. The only thing you have shown is you hate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is not just the mental ineptitude of one special relativity defender. Rather it is an absolute stock approach.In the real world people who recognise that special relativity is crap do so because they understand the theory. But without exception the defenders make the claim that the reason that they don’t agree is because they don’t understand.
How many schools of thought are quite this inept? The Keynesians are extremely stupid. But they aren’t quite THIS stupid.
Just to show it wasn’t the one SR-Loon, only a couple of posts later a new dummy chimes in. What had happened is that I’d pointed out that though the theory bills itself as being based on only two postulates, in reality each postulate is a bizzare series of claims. Which is true. I know this because I understand the theory. But these truly dumb bastards just go forth like zombies with their theory that anyone who doesn’t agree hasn’t gotten their head around it:
1. Its your theory. You describe it in plain English the best you can. The first postulate contains an outrageous series of bizzare claims.
(THIS IS TRUE. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE THEORY. BUT LOOK AT ANOTHER UTTER MORONS RESPONSE. HE ASSUMES I’M ONLY SAYING THIS BECAUSE I FIND SPECIAL RELATIVITY COUNTERINTUITIVE).
2.No. The first postulate claims that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. The consequences of the two postulates together when applied to certain situations lead to the extraordinary and counter intuitive results. But only when involving motion at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. But since intuition is based on everday experience and relative motion at a significant fraction of the speed of light is clearly not an everyday experience, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a theory to cover such situations should be intuitive. What it does need to be, however, is logically consistent (it is, despite what you think about your precious Dingle refutation) and backed up by experiment (thankfully it is backed up by literally trillions of pieces of experimental data).
I mean how fucking dumb is this. These guys are unable to see past the tendentious wording of the first postulate. This is the primitive nature of their understanding of the theory. Yet they simply assume that if you yourself are not a devotee its because you do not understand. In the real world its because you understand only too well.
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
Graham,
I’ll say this slowley, cause I know how much words confuse you….
IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE TRUE BY COUNTLESS EXPERIMENTS!!!!!
Partical accelerators WOULDN’t WORK if it was not for the veracity of SR.
Just because you don’t understand it (and you made that clear several times) does not make it false.
By: Wizo on January 9, 2009
at 10:52 am
Give me JUST ONE with all the detail you can muster. We will see that when taken individually the experiments have feet of clay.
I don’t know if you know what a cub is? Its like a boy scout only still too little to be a scout. When I went to cubs we would get these badges for doing various thing. But we weren’t that far past toddler age. And we’d get this science badge for holding two wires together and making this small bulb glow. Supposing we had a wrong theory of light. And we were certain that the successful turning on of the little bulb confirmed this theory. And then when the next cub came through and held the wires together well that confirmed the theory again in our view. And the more people that did this thing all over the world the more confident we were that these literally trillions of experiments were confirming our wrong theory of light.
Well if we thought that we would be as moronic as someone who buys into special relativity. And I can prove it. Here we go with someone who is extremely moronic and his name is Blake Stacey.
“Am I on topic to say that special relativity is dead from the neck up. And kept alive only be relentless lying.
“This is the Skeptics’ Circle, the place where we praise science and reason, and smirk and mock the gullible and credulous.”
The problem with this notion is that the skeptics movement has deteriorated and become almost the opposite of what it used to be. Rather than being rational enquirers they have become mindless bully-boy advocates of the intellectual status quo. There isn’t a conventional consensus mainstream taxeater idea that they won’t endorse. Arthur C Clarke is gone. Ian Plimer is no longer listened to. And Randi must have gotten too old to realise what dim bulbs his younger acolytes are.
Its pretty sad.
But what we can prove pretty quickly is that no-one is about to find any good macroscopic and non-circular evidence for this crap theory. ”
“You’re not exactly on topic, and you’re also thoroughly wrong. For future reference, a statement about science should ideally be followed by scientific facts given in support of your proposition. The more radical the proposition, the stronger the evidence expected in support. Irrelevant remarks about a science-fiction author (who was not a terribly good skeptic on all matters, swallowing as he did a great deal of bunk about cold fusion) and an anti-creationist who can’t keep his head screwed on when it comes to climate science do not support either your thesis or your general credibility.
I have, personally, done experiments using electrons emitted through radioactive decay whose results were consistent with special relativity and not with Newtonian mechanics. I was neither the first nor the last to take such measurements.
For violating point 2 of the comment policy, I pronounce a sentence of summary banning.”
A real fucking dummy this guy but lets look closer at the part thats relevant right here:
“……..I have, personally, done experiments using electrons emitted through radioactive decay whose results were consistent with special relativity and not with Newtonian mechanics. I was neither the first nor the last to take such measurements……..”
Any experiment that fails to verify or falsify, change the ranking, or the distance between the rankings, of 3 or more paradigms being developed in parallel, is really wasted money.Notice he was only thinking Newton or Einstein. Notice also that it was subatomic particles and therefore wholly speculative and indirect. Notice that he seems to think that the sheer number of people wasting money mucking about with this stuff adds to the validity of it. But once the results of an experiment are known nothing more can be gained by repeating that same experiment over.
These days taxeating science workers talk about VALIDATION of the theory. But this is a terribly unscientific idea. It took me a long time to figure out what this meant. It just sounded so lame. So Gay. Like they were living on Gay Street, one block from sodomy-central. I figured out that what they really meant is that the experiment failed to falsify their particular prejudice. But nothing can be learned from continual failure to falsify except
by the science minister who can use that information to help him decide where the funds need to be cut off.
By: graemebird on January 9, 2009
at 8:25 pm
“Give me JUST ONE with all the detail you can muster. We will see that when taken individually the experiments have feet of clay.”
We may as well start with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Here is its details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
MICHELSON-MORLEY IS A REFUTATION OF EINSTEINS RELATIVITY. SINCE ITS A NON-NULL RESULT FOR THE AETHER.
By: Ian Fisk on January 10, 2009
at 10:27 am
“We may as well start with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Here is its details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
MICHELSON-MORLEY IS A REFUTATION OF EINSTEINS RELATIVITY. SINCE ITS A NON-NULL RESULT FOR THE AETHER.”
Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment was done to test for the existence of the aether. It was not a test of SR.
SLOPPY LOGIC. IT GOES AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE EXPERIMENT AND ITS RESULTS. NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE EXPERIMENTERS. NOW THE THING IS THIS. DO YOU HAVE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID?
MICHELSON MORLEY DECISIVELY DEEP-SIXED THE CONCEPT OF THE UNENTRAINED AETHER. THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH IT MUST NOW BE VIEWED AS DECISIVE. SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS A CONCEPTUALLY DEAD THEORY AND DOES NOT NEED MICHELSON MORLEY TO FINISH IT OFF. NONETHELESS MICHELSON MORELY WOULD BE AKIN TO A STINGING JAB TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY IF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WERE UP OFF THE CANVAS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
“After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what might be called the most famous failed experiment to date. Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley’s article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement…………….
……. SITE-DIETY SEZ one-fortieth the expected displacement IF THE AETHER WERE TOTALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE EARTHS MOVEMENT, ATMOSPHERE AND GRAVITY FIELD.
SO YOU SEE THE EXPERIMENT DECISIVELY DESTROYS THE CONCEPT OF THE UNENTRAINED AETHER, KICKS THE ALREADY DEAD THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE HEAD, AND YET STILL HAS EVIDENCE APLENTY FOR THE PARTIALLY ENTRAINED AETHER. ALL AS ONE WOULD EXPECT.
“…… but “since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity” they concluded that the measured velocity was approximately one-sixth of the expected velocity of the Earth’s motion in orbit and “certainly less than one-fourth.”
RIGHT. THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY EXPECTED THE AETHER TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE SUN ALONE. OR ELSE. THEIR REFERENCE POINT WAS AS IF THE SUN WAS THE CENTRE OF ALL THINGS. OR SO IT SEEMS.
[2] Although this small “velocity” was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of aether
RIGHT. THATS THEM BEING HONEST AND HUMBLE SCIENTISTS. WE DON’T GET THAT ANYMORE. THE GUYS. IN THEIR OWN EYES THEIR EXPERIMENT HAD FAILED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AND THEY SPEAK TO US VERY CLEARLY. THEY CONFIRM THE DOCTRINE OF THE PARTIALLY-ENTRAINED AETHER…….
…… and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.”
ONLY IF YOU ARE A TENDENTIOUS RELATIVIST THOUGH. SINCE THE EXPERIMENTS HAVE BEEN REPEATED, AND ALWAYS WITH A NON-NULL RESULT.
The experiment has been repeated many times. The latest ones reduces the velocity wrt the aether to 0.0000000000001 km/s.
BUT THEY WERE LYING. ONE ASSUMES THEY USED MIRRORS. YOU DON’T KNOW JACK ABOUT THAT EXPERIMENT SO ITS NO USE PUTTING IT UP. UNLESS YOU COME UP WITH SOME MORE DETAIL I’LL WIPE THAT LAST REFERENCE AND PUT IT DOWN TO RESEARCH-GRANT WHOREDOM.
By: Ian Fisk on January 10, 2009
at 10:46 am
The big problem with aether drag (or entrainment) is stellar aberration.
You may also want to look at the Hammar experiment which tested for aether drag
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammar_experiment).
DON’T PRETEND YOU’VE COME UP WITH ANY EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF THE PARTIALLY-ENTRAINED AETHER SINCE YOU HAVEN’T. TRY AGAIN.
By: Ian Fisk on January 10, 2009
at 11:00 am
A better experimental evidence for SR is the time dilation experienced by muons.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html)
ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU HAVE TO GO MICROSCOPIC ON US ALL OF A SUDDEN? REMEMBERING THAT ALL, OR AT LEAST MOST, MICROSCOPIC EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE INDIRECT. NO-ONE TRULY UNDERSTANDS SOMETHING, BUT THAT THEY CAN DERIVE IT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES UP, OR HAVE DONE SO IN THE PAST. YOU TELL ME FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES HOW IS IT THEY ARE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FAST-MOVING MUONS LIVE LONGER? IS IT BECAUSE THE MACHINE SAYS SO? BUT THE MACHINE ITSELF IS PROGRAMMED BY HUMANS WHO PROGRAM IT ON THE BASIS OF SOME THEORY OR OTHER. SO TO AUDIT THE EXPERIMENT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL ME FROM THE GROUND UP EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THE MACHINE PURPORTS TO BE MEASURING.
IF THESE MUONS DO INDEED LAST LONGER WHEN THEY MOVE FASTER, THEN SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS GETTING IN THE WAY OF ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY. SINCE WE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MUONS VELOCITY PER SE. VELOCITY BEING A RELATIVE CONCEPT.
By: Ian Fisk on January 10, 2009
at 11:09 am
He won’t get it, Ian.
“Show me evidence” is rhetorical.
NO YOU ARE LYING. THERE IS TO BE NO LYING ON THIS FORUM WIZZO. I LET FISK GET AWAY WITH SOME BECAUSE HE AT LEAST PROVIDES USEFUL INFORMATION SOMETIMES. What have YOU!!!! done for me lately?????????
By: Wizo on January 10, 2009
at 7:04 pm
“A better experimental evidence for SR is the time dilation experienced by muons.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html)
ASK YOURSELF WHY YOU HAVE TO GO MICROSCOPIC ON US ALL OF A SUDDEN? REMEMBERING THAT ALL, OR AT LEAST MOST, MICROSCOPIC EVIDENCE TENDS TO BE INDIRECT. NO-ONE TRULY UNDERSTANDS SOMETHING, BUT THAT THEY CAN DERIVE IT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES UP, OR HAVE DONE SO IN THE PAST. YOU TELL ME FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES HOW IS IT THEY ARE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FAST-MOVING MUONS LIVE LONGER? IS IT BECAUSE THE MACHINE SAYS SO? BUT THE MACHINE ITSELF IS PROGRAMMED BY HUMANS WHO PROGRAM IT ON THE BASIS OF SOME THEORY OR OTHER. SO TO AUDIT THE EXPERIMENT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL ME FROM THE GROUND UP EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THE MACHINE PURPORTS TO BE MEASURING.
IF THESE MUONS DO INDEED LAST LONGER WHEN THEY MOVE FASTER, THEN SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS GETTING IN THE WAY OF ANY UNDERSTANDING WHY. SINCE WE KNOW THAT IT IS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MUONS VELOCITY PER SE. VELOCITY BEING A RELATIVE CONCEPT.”
So muons are “microscopic” bur light (photons) is not!
There is no indirectness in this. Just do the measurement and you see that fast muons have longer lifetimes than slow muons. All you have to be able to do is count muons.
They do last longer. The reason is time dilation. Time dilation is a prediction of Special Relativity.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 12:22 am
It is in fact an extremely easy experiment.
NO GOOD. DOESN’T MATTER HOW “EASY” IT IS. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE THINK WE ARE MEASURING AND WHY. I DON’T THINK YOU ARE REALLY “GETTING IT” YET. GO DEEPER INTO THE QUESTION HERE. WHAT DOES THE DEVICE DO AND WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE IMBEDDED IN WHAT THIS DEVICE DOES.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 12:23 am
FYI: I will be using the experiments listed in the “Experimental basis of Special Relativity” page.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
There are about 20 sub headings on this page…..
IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOU CONCENTRATED ON ONE. A BUCKETLOAD OF SHIT ISN’T WORTH AN OUNCE OF GOLD. COME TO THINK OF IT A TRUCKLOAD OF SHIT ISN’T WORTH ALL THAT MUCH EITHER. YOU’VE GONE SUBATOMIC AND THEREFORE INDIRECT. AND YOU’VE GOT NOTHING THERE BECAUSE YOU ARE DEPENDING ON THE ASSUMPTIONS OF WHATEVER INSTRUMENT IS BEING USED TO DO THE MEASURING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 12:32 am
“It is in fact an extremely easy experiment.
NO GOOD. DOESN’T MATTER HOW “EASY” IT IS. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE THINK WE ARE MEASURING AND WHY. I DON’T THINK YOU ARE REALLY “GETTING IT” YET. GO DEEPER INTO THE QUESTION HERE. WHAT DOES THE DEVICE DO AND WHAT ASSUMPTIONS ARE IMBEDDED IN WHAT THIS DEVICE DOES.”
Then you need to……..
NO FELLA. I DON’T NEED TO DO ANYTHING. WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS COME UP WITH SOME EVIDENCE. NOW WHY DID YOU HAVE TO GO SUBATOMIC? WHEN NONE OF THE EVIDENCE THERE CAN EVER BE DIRECT? BUT GIVEN THAT YOU’VE GONE SUBATOMIC, WITH EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS YOUR ANSWER TO THE TWO CLOCKS REFUTATION…… GIVEN ALL THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO DERIVE JUST WHAT IT IS THAT THE EQUIPMENT MEASURES AND UNDER WHAT ASSUMPTIONS.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 12:53 am
The “device” measures the muon flux. The muon flux is the number of muons passing through an area in a time period.
NO IT DOESN’T. IT DOES SOMETHING MORE BASIC THEN THAT. SEE HOW DEPENDENT THE MEASURE YOU GET IS ON THE THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS YOU PROGRAM IN. WHAT DOES IT MEASURE ON A MORE BASIC LEVEL.
BUT HOLD THAT THOUGHT ANYWAY. SO YOU SAY IT MEASURES THE NUMBER OF MUONS PER AREA PER TIME. NOW HOW DO YOU DEDUCE LONG-LIFE VIA SPEED ON THAT BASIS. WE HAVE TO AUDIT THE ASSUMPTIONS. THE REASONING BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 12:55 am
And here is a “Compact Apparatus for Muon Lifetime Measurement and Time Dilation Demonstration in the Undergraduate Laboratory”
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502103v1
The paper decribes doing the muon time dilation experiment. Note that as the authors state “the detector design is non-optimal for this demonstration since it is sensitive to muons with a range of velocities as well as non-vertical trajectories, it has the advantage that no bulky velocity selecting absorbers or additional trajectory defining scintillators12 are required. The idea is simple. The total number of stopped muons in the detector in some fixed time interval and at some fixed altitude above sea level (a.s.l.) is measured from the decay time time histogram. A lower altitude is selected and predictions made for the new stopping rate that do and do not include the time dilation effect of special relativity. Measurement then discriminates between the two predictions.”
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 1:11 am
“NO IT DOESN’T. IT DOES SOMETHING MORE BASIC THEN THAT. SEE HOW DEPENDENT THE MEASURE YOU GET IS ON THE THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS YOU PROGRAM IN. WHAT DOES IT MEASURE ON A MORE BASIC LEVEL.
BUT HOLD THAT THOUGHT ANYWAY. SO YOU SAY IT MEASURES THE NUMBER OF MUONS PER AREA PER TIME. NOW HOW DO YOU DEDUCE LONG-LIFE VIA SPEED ON THAT BASIS. WE HAVE TO AUDIT THE ASSUMPTIONS. THE REASONING BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS.”
See the previous post.
NO DUDE. WE ARE CHECKING THE REASONING HERE FROM THE GROUND UP. SO ONE LINK WILL DO FINE IF IT HELPS YOU ILLUSTRATE AND AUDIT THE LOGIC BEHIND THE METHODOLOGY. YOU MUST CHECK THE REASONING. BUT THERE IS NO USE JUST POSTING A LINK SHITRAIN AND ACTING LIKE THATS EVIDENCE.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 1:12 am
So where were you? Taking your claim at face value for one moment only you claim that this thing measures muon flux. The number of muons passing through an area over a certain time period.
Now if thats not too much of a leap already, if that evidence isn’t already too indirect, still how does it then get used to bolster a dead theory? What are the steps in reasoning?
Is it to be suggested that nothing else could account for the alleged longer life?????
But still we haven’t gotten that far yet. There is no indication that we’ve shown a longer muon life at all so far.
By: graemebird on January 11, 2009
at 1:14 am
““NO IT DOESN’T. IT DOES SOMETHING MORE BASIC THEN THAT. SEE HOW DEPENDENT THE MEASURE YOU GET IS ON THE THEORY AND ASSUMPTIONS YOU PROGRAM IN. WHAT DOES IT MEASURE ON A MORE BASIC LEVEL.
BUT HOLD THAT THOUGHT ANYWAY. SO YOU SAY IT MEASURES THE NUMBER OF MUONS PER AREA PER TIME. NOW HOW DO YOU DEDUCE LONG-LIFE VIA SPEED ON THAT BASIS. WE HAVE TO AUDIT THE ASSUMPTIONS. THE REASONING BEHIND THE ASSUMPTIONS.”
See the previous post.
NO DUDE. WE ARE CHECKING THE REASONING HERE FROM THE GROUND UP. SO ONE LINK WILL DO FINE IF IT HELPS YOU ILLUSTRATE AND AUDIT THE LOGIC BEHIND THE METHODOLOGY. YOU MUST CHECK THE REASONING. BUT THERE IS NO USE JUST POSTING A LINK SHITRAIN AND ACTING LIKE THATS EVIDENCE.”
The ressoning is in the link. read it and then ask me questions about it.
By: Ian Fisk on January 11, 2009
at 2:39 am
Lets have that reasoning in your own words. You don’t get to create distractions or send people on wild goose chases.
By: graemebird on January 11, 2009
at 2:44 am
In fact I’m going to have to wipe your post in awhile. Because you cannot be allowed to create the IMPRESSION of evidence without coming up with the evidence itself.
Lets derive things from the ground up.
By: graemebird on January 11, 2009
at 2:45 am
Does the ground up mean from the 2 posulates of Special Relativity?
By: Ian Fisk (“COMPLETE PRICK” according to Graeme Bird) on January 11, 2009
at 2:54 am
But it does not disturb you?
By: Ian Fisk (“COMPLETE PRICK”, "CUNT", "STUPID CUNT", "complete fuckwit", "DUMB CUNT". "STUPID FUCK", "bullshitting", "RETARDED" according to Graeme Bird) on January 12, 2009
at 10:16 am
Actually while you are here:
Graeme has mentioned your atomic model (he calles it the big fat electron model). Can you tell me the differences between it and the plum pudding model?
By: Ian Fisk (“COMPLETE PRICK”, "CUNT", "STUPID CUNT", "complete fuckwit", "DUMB CUNT". "STUPID FUCK", "bullshitting", "RETARDED" according to Graeme Bird) on January 12, 2009
at 10:17 am
My goodness Fisk is a stupid cunt. The thing about the first postulate is its a bait and switch. The theory claims to back up the idea of velocity as a relative concept, which is trivial, old hat and true. But then the theory goes absolutely against that very concept. And turns into a theory of total velocity absolutism. Which doesn’t exist and never could. Despite Einsteins wordplay velocity remains relative.
The intellectual dishonesty of saying that “the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames” could not be more glaring and its really stands out for the dishonest piece of humbuggery it is for someone from an economics background.
What laws of physics would that be? The laws of physics as relating to heat? As far as we know the laws of physics are the same regardless, having nothing to do with inertial frames.
So Einsteins use of the language has him making claims that are the opposite of what he appears to be saying. If he were to simply state what he meant by this in plain English, and with some detail, we would see that this statement amounted to an whole host of unsupportable and unsupported claims.
The whole story turns out to be a saga of the cult of personality. And in importation of mysticism into science.
By: graemebird on May 27, 2009
at 2:53 am
t = to(1 – v2/c2)-1/2
By: Shreiking wombat on May 27, 2009
at 3:19 am
Right. That would be part of the Lorentz transformation formula. Letting maths dictate reality rather than the other way around.
By: graemebird on May 27, 2009
at 4:25 am
Hebrew Science.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 27, 2009
at 4:34 am
Now now Ron. People might get the wrong idea if you start up with that. As funny as it is.
By: graemebird on May 27, 2009
at 4:37 am
I just call ’em as I see ’em, Mr B.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 27, 2009
at 4:53 am
Good point Mr Hanson.
The Yids have a penchant for overabstraction. Not all of them are that bad. I had a young fellow under my command in the second world war who was part-yid from Bondi. Fine chap though he got his legs blown off.
However this penchant for overabstraction is what lands them in trouble – take for instance their attraction to Marxism.
By: Winchester Quartermain on May 27, 2009
at 5:02 am
I’m glad that you once knew a Loyal Hebrew, Mr Quartermain.
However in my experience I am not aware of any contributions that the Sons of Isaac have made to Western Civilisation other than quantum mechanics, soft money and Gangsta Rap.
None of which is an improvement on that which preceded it.
ALL JOKING ASIDE I’LL BE AS BIGOTED AS I WANNA BE. BUT MANY OF MY HEROES TEND TO BE IN THE GENERATION OF JEWISH AMERICANS THAT WERE YOUNG PEOPLE DURING THE WAR.
I MEAN LOOK AT GEORGE REISMAN. AMERICAN TOUGH GUY. OUR GREATEST ECONOMIST. ATHEIST OF JEWISH EXTRACTION. BUT TO ME HE’S LIKE A HYPER-ANGLO. I THINK OF HIM AS A CLINT EASTWOOD. OR LIKE THE JEWISH WILLIAM SHATNER PLAYING CAPTAIN KIRK. ALWAYS STICKS UP FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. FIERCELY LOYAL. STICKS BY HIS MATES LIKE AN HONORARY AUSTRALIAN. STICKS BY GOOD YET FLAWED PEOPLE EVEN WHEN THEY’VE LET HIM DOWN.
SO WHILE YOU ARE FREE TO GENERALISE AND LET OFF A BIT OF STEAM, I MEAN WE ARE HUMAN WE ARE TRIBAL. WE CAN GRATE AGAINST EACHOTHER ONE SUSPECTS. BUT ITS FOOLISH TO TURN AWAY FRIENDS AND ALLIES ON ACCOUNT OF THIS OR THAT.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 27, 2009
at 5:20 am
WHAT ABOUT IT. DON’T SET HOMEWORK FOR PEOPLE FOOL. MAKE A PROPER LINK AND TELL US WHY YOU THINK THE LINK IS SIGNIFICANT.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 27, 2009
at 6:11 am
THAT OLD PIECE OF CIRCULAR REASONING. I SEE WHAT YOU ARE UP TO NOW. YOU ARE JUST MINDLESSLY PICKING STUFF OFF THE ONE LINK.
BUSTED YOU GOOD AND PROPER.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 27, 2009
at 6:31 am
WHY WOULD THEY NOT LOSE TIME?
I CAN TELLY YOU WHAT IT ISN’T. IT ISN’T ANYTHING TO DO WITH EINSTEIN. SINCE VELOCITY IS A RELATIVE CONCEPT.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 27, 2009
at 6:58 am
NO THATS NOT RIGHT. NEITHER OBJECT CAN BE HELD TO BE AT REST SINCE VELOCITY IS RELATIVE.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 27, 2009
at 8:21 am
IF YOU WERE NOT AN IDIOT YOU WOULDN’T HAVE TO GO FORTH ON THE BASIS OF FAITH AND BELIEF.
NO GOOD SCIENTIST IS RIGHT ALL THE TIME. AND THAT CERTAINLY WENT FOR EINSTEIN, NEWTON AND EVERYONE ELSE AS WELL.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 28, 2009
at 12:16 am
But you forget that SR has been confirmed time and again.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 28, 2009
at 12:40 am
By Hebrews, Sub Continentals and Celestials.
Show me where a right-thinking English-Speaking White Man has confirmed Special Relativity from First Principles.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 1:06 am
Shrieking wombat, you are nothing but a toadying lickspittle for Marxist Science.
Conceptual Audit FAIL.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 1:27 am
Damn straight. Conceptual audit fail all round right Ron? How is Humphreys for his CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL.
Here is a man who lacks introspection and carries within him many hidden agendas. Else he could not maintain that level of stupidity over that length of time.
Everything gets a CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL on this thread. Except for your brand new concept of the CONCEPTUAL AUDIT FAIL. As you said that gets a CONCEPTUAL AUDIT PASS A++++ WITH DISTINCTION.
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 1:34 am
There ya go Ron:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html
RIGHT. THEIR STUDIOUSNESS AND HARD WORK TENDENTIOUSLY SEIZED UPON BY THE SPECIAL RELATIVITY IDEOLOGUES FOR THEIR OWN FEVERISH PURPOSES OF CULT-WORSHIP AND MATHEMATICS-NECROMANCY.
By: Shreiking wombat on May 28, 2009
at 1:34 am
By the way Ron. There are a lot of theories I’ve been pushing that get conceptual audit passes with distinction. Even though they may not be true. Neil Adams gets a conceptual audit pass with conceptual audit nobels but he could still be wrong. The evidence points to him being right but there could be a lot of gear coming from left field that we have not taken into consideration.
What we can be sure of is that if Neil isn’t right then we are looking for a third and fourth paradigm on the way to enlightenment since Neils ideas concur so much better with the evidence then this really shabby plate tectonics business that has been carved in the stone hearts and minds of the priesthood.
But thats the same for all of the far-out ideas I have here. I’m able to say what ought to be the leading paradigm. But until we get full spectrum convergence without outstanding anomalies we lack rightful certitude.
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 1:39 am
Did you read that link, wombat, you lying fuck?
“Gravitational wave astronomy would then be the first observational technique for which the basic principle was first tested in an astrophysical context. All earlier observational techniques in astronomy have been based on physical phenomena which first became known in a terrestrial connection.”
They admit their “Science” is not based on physical phemonena. So they just make shit up and tell you it’s true, and a bunch of Nordic Pinkos in Stockholm stop sucking each other off long enough to give them a medal for this garbage.
So what. If you believe that you believe anything.
Gravity “Proved” but not based on physical phenomena.
It’s the scientific equivalent of Ponzi money i.e. fractional reserve currency.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 3:34 am
Gravity moves in waves. That’s what wombat thinks.
What a fucking moron.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 3:39 am
“Gravity “Proved” but not based on physical phenomena.
It’s the scientific equivalent of Ponzi money i.e. fractional reserve currency.”
Right. My thesis. Not as yet proved. But my main thesis is that currency debasement dilutes and destroys all human values and not just monetary values. Its the currency debasement that steals the values of the 1840’s and gives us the nothing of right now.
We are losing it Ron. You look at our solid scientists. Are you familiar with our good girl Jennifer? She took a long time to fully realise that she was dealing with lunatics and fraud. So she used to go dead easy on these people.
But she’s always been solid. Not moved one inch to the left or right by their wailing and acts of hysteria and science-worker-spoilt-brat sentiment.
And you know why?
I reckon its because or good good girl was brought up in the country. Brought up on outdoor plumbing no doubt, and tasked to gather the eggs, feed the chooks, burn her own rubbish. Allowed to WANDER (pronounced “wonder”) in the countryside. Feel the texture on her hands of objects that weren’t all made of plastic GGGGRRRRRRRRR. Mud, wood, leaves, grass. Not just feebly playing with plastic in a world not grounded to gold.
WANDER Ron. “WANDER”. Have you ever noticed… Has the gypsy in you ever noticed the close resemblance between the words “WANDER” and “WONDER” (pronounced “wunder”)
Our young Jennifer. Beautiful girl. Allowed to “WONDER” in the countryside. Build up strong values. An affinity with nature and science. Build up the staunch attitude in favour of the supposedly (at that time) unshakeable ethos of science.
And look at her. The truest frontline warrior holding out just like a lone country girl holding up a flashing sword in the moonlight. Not saying that she will kill them all. But just saying that its this far and no farther that this stinking anti-science vermin will go.
Untouched by the damage all this currency debasement has caused us Ron. Look at when she was born. 63 or thereabouts. She would have been a good 8 years old before Nixon broke the last link to gold and maybe twelve did ever any implications whatsoever make its way to true North in Australia.
She’s our girl and I want you to promise me you’ll heap abuse on any of these evil leftists who defame her because when I do it she wipes my posts.
Just come down on them like a ton of bricks. Because her blog and the Prodos blog are the best pro-freedom blogs we have.
And that rat-fink SOON could never even stoop to organise a night-out at the Clock to celebrate when she moved from Brisbane to the Blue Mountains.
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 4:01 am
Err I had no idea she moved to the Blue Mountains.
And you do know where the Blue Mountains are right? Hell of a way for her to travel to the Clock.
By: The wrath of Khan on May 28, 2009
at 4:05 am
DON’T TALK UTTER SHIT YOU IDIOT. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SPACE-TIME NOR A SKERRIT OF EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUCH UNICORN. FURTHERMORE FOR YOUR FUCKING-INFORMATION………
CURVATURE IS A FUNCTION OF SHAPE. SHAPE YOU DUMB CUNT. YES SHAPE. AND SINCE ONLY OBJECTS, I SAID OBJECTS, HAVE SHAPE…… ONLY OBJECTS CAN BE SAID TO BE CURVED. SPACE IS NOT AN OBJECT. AND SO IT CANNOT BE CURVED. ALTHOUGH ANY NUMBER OF OBJECTS WITH CURVES CAN BE CONTAINED WITHIN SPACE.
NOW STOP BEING STUPID AND GROW UP YOU DUMB FUCK.
By: Lugubrious goat on May 28, 2009
at 4:10 am
Well don’t just sit there fella.
Make amends so that I know you are genuine. She really is the best we have. She has copped more abuse then anyone. Far more than Albrechtsen but I think that Albrechsten inspires fear.
One always imagines that Albrechtsen has whips and things around the place. Plus Albrechsten was a lawyer. And that engenders a sort of fear factor in your average defamatory leftist “male.”
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 4:12 am
“A gravitational wave arises due to fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime.”
Lies and garbage. Look at the perverting effect of Cosmopolitan Modernism on the developing brain of impressionable Youth.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 4:20 am
Mr B
You should have left Goat’s comment up as testimony to the stupidity of Man.
“A gravitational wave arises due to fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime.”
Where did he learn that? has he seen a gravitational wave? has he witnessed the pool balls bounce around as a gravitational wave comes rolling in?
and this curvature bullshit.
He’s never witnessed any of it. And he’s shown that the experts don’t even have physical evidence!!!!
Never been witnessed and no physical evidence for it.
It’s the Big Lie.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 4:24 am
“A gravitational wave arises due to fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime.”
My god that makes me so angry. I want to punch his fucking lights out.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 4:35 am
There has been experimental evidence for the curvature of spacetime by a massive object since the early part of this century
YOU STUPID IGNORANT CUNT. NO THERE HAS NOT. THERE NEVER COULD DO. THIS IS LIKE CALLING JENNIFER “THE TRUTH”. JENNIFER IS A RIGHTEOUS GIRL BUT IF FROM HERE ON IN WE STARTED CALLING HER “TRUTH” THIS WOULD BE WHAT IS KNOWN AS “REIFICATION”
ITS GRABBING CONCEPTS THAT DON’T BELONG IN ORDER TO EXPLOIT OUR SENSE OF WONDER AND FUCK WITH OUR BRAINS. ITS FINE FOR THE THEOLOGIANS BUT IT HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE.
NOW LETS GO OVER IT AGAIN. CURVATURE IS AN ASPECT OF SHAPE. SHAPE IS AN ASPECT OF OBJECTS. SPACE IS NOT!!!!!!!!! NOT-AN-OBJECT. SPACE IS NOT AN OBJECT SO NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU THINK ABOUT THE TRINITY, THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST, AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU REALISE THAT JENNIFER MAROHASY IS NOT JUST TRUE AND GOOD…… BUT INDEED SHE IS “TRUTH” JENNIFER IS “TRUTH ITSELF” AS IT WERE…. WELL NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS JIVE NOT BE SIMPLE REIFICATION.
JENNIFER IS WONDERFUL. BUT SHE CAN NEVER BE TRUTH ITSELF. OR THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT. FOR TO DESCRIBE HER AS SUCH IS TO STEAL CONCEPTS IN ONE AREA INAPPROPRIATE TO OTHER AREAS.
SO TO SPACE CAN NEVER HAVE CURVATURE. FOR CURVATURE IS A SUBSET THAT APPLIES TO VARIOUS SHAPES. AND SHAPE APPLIES TO THINGS WE KNOW TO BE OBJECTS. AND SPACE IS NO OBJECT, HAS NO SHAPE, AND NO CURVATURE.
NOW JENNIFER CAN HAVE CURVATURE MY OATH SHE CAN.
BUT SPACE CANNOT.
NOW HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET YOU STUPID CUNT?
OR AM I GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT OVER?
By: Lugubrious goat on May 28, 2009
at 4:44 am
You got it Ron. And I reckon this shit comes in waves alright. Comes in waves along with bursts of fractional reserve bank-cash-pyramiding.
Do you remember how our rock stars…. you know even the ones who were not gay, well they all started dressing and acting gay after governments started printing all this money around the world after the oil shock that inevitably followed the breaking of those chains of honour, fidelity and sanity that linked the USD to gold.
Look at rocking Rod today. Rocking Rod. Says he’s going to love some babe LIKE FIFTEEN MEN in one of his songs. Well back in those days, though clearly heterosexual, he used to dress like a fucking outrageous faggot.
This is what fractional reserve does to society Ron. Even if blokes stay basically solid like rocking Rod they wind up at least ACTING like queers and pimps on a surface level.
Here is a typical video from inflation days. Not for when you are actually eating a meal. A very nice song actually. But the appearance Ron. The appearance.
I ask you? Is this an example of the sort of Anglo-Saxon-Romano-Celt that has kicked ass on every last corner of the globe?
Actually in the fullness of Davids life he probably has shown that self-same mettle. But what I’m talking about is the effect that fractional reserve explosions have on our society.
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 4:50 am
Damn you are so on the money, Mr B.
On the money.
If you had a radio show (I wish you did) you would have to call it “Graeme Bird On the Money” because you are right on the money in every possible sense.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 5:16 am
I can see Ron that you have run away in disgust and anger at what I just did to you. But it was a good song you must admit that. And it was for a worthy cause. The cause being scientific enquiry.
Now lets suppose we take people the same age. From the same British stock (Anglo-Saxon-Romano-Viking-Celt) and subject them to two bursts of really tight money with reasonably restrained money in between.
How does that change their behaviour and bearing:
I swear Ron. If I didn’t know it was Mick and I didn’t know his age and shall we say “sexual ambivalence” I’d want to introduce the solid British kid to my stepdaughter.
OUR LIVES ARE THREATENED.
OUR JOBS AT RISK.
SOMETIMES DICTATORS NEED A SLAP ON THE WRIST.
ANOTHER MUNICH WE JUST CAN’T AFFORD.
WE GONNA SEND IN THE 82ND AIRBORNE.
GET UP.
STAND UP.
OUT OF MY WAY.
See that Ron. Solid. Hard. Tough. Tough guys. And all it took was hard money. Hard money.
Soft money makes faggots out of all the people we rely on.
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 5:23 am
Well of course.
If you have Cosmopolitan Currency and Cosmopolitan Science then of course you will have Cosmopolitan Sexuality as well.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 28, 2009
at 5:52 am
THE REDEMPTION OF BARRY BLACK (A JEDI-KNIGHT FABLE).
Well yes. Not necessarily on the individual level. But its a slant that comes down on society. The grey dawn of a brave new world. No primary colours.
Whereas in the real world of colours there is a young girl in the early morning mist, an Australian blood red early morning sky. Jennifer holding a sword aloft swearing no backdown to these evil filth and the primary colours swarming out all around. But this is no story of primary colours.
You see Ron I represent the most ancient of prophecies. I represent the prophecy of the THREE BARRY’S.
Elsewhere and in some closed circles known as the THREE BARRY’S PROPHECY. And the THREE BARRY’S PROPHECY predates the works of ancient Sumer.
Once I had struggled. I had struggled. Struggled hard Ron. But these are personal details Ron. I got elevated to be the second Barry.
You see there was Barry White. And Barry White was the symbol of love and goodness. I, after many struggles, became Barry Black. The symbol of hate and evil. And I thought I was top dog. I thought I was shit hot. Hot shit. The Barry to end all Barry’s.
But then Barry-White died. And that left a Jedi-Knight-Like gap in the order of things. And that raised to prominence a third Barry THE THIRD BARRY.
That took a homosexual marxist idiot called Barry Soetoro up and raised him up and brought him up to become the THIRD BARRY.
He became BARRY BEIGE. He was neither black nor white. He was Barry Beige. As a homosexual Muslim he was a coffee-coloured misfit.
But he found his feet after he was raised up to be the third Barry. BARRY BEIGE. And he became more evil then anything I’d experienced or ever hoped for. And he turned me off evil for quits and had me listening to old Barry White songs and weeping for my past wrongdoing.
I realised then that I had to try and fill Barry Whites shoes. So from now on I preach only love (through superior economic policy) and peace (through superior firepower not excluding metal storm.)
Barry Adolf Hussein Che Soetoro Barrack Beige Obama is an evil bastard alright. And if he isn’t taken down as an usurper then we here in Australia are on our own. And we better have silver coins in our pockets. Gold coins in the safe, Metal Storm in our holsters, and Andrew Jackson in our hearts or we are fucking done for.
WE DIDN’T APPRECIATE HIM UNTIL HE WAS GONE. BUT HE WAS ALL THAT STOOD BETWEEN US AND BARRY BEIGE.
By: BARRY BLACK on May 28, 2009
at 6:03 am
One aspect of above was inspired by one of the danger-low-brow radio team that used to have a show in Melbourne. He introduced the concept of Barry Black being Barry Whites evil White twin.
COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF INTEREST IN SCIENCE IDIOT.
OH FOR FUCKSAKES. I WAS GOING TO LEAVE YOUR LINK THINKING IT MAY BE SOME DIM FACSIMILE OF WHAT USED TO BE CALLED EVIDENCE. AND IT WAS THE MOST PLAY-SCHOOL ASSORTMENT OF COLOURS AND NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY FUCKING THING. LET ALONE GRAVITATIONAL LENSING. A CONCEPT I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH BUT FOR THE LOVE OF BIG TITTY BLONDES EVERYWHERE CAN YOU TRY AND PUT YOUR SCIENCE HAT ON WHEN YOU TALK TO ME.
By: Lugubrious goat on May 28, 2009
at 6:29 am
Logged posts:
“Prodos, I don’t think you’re being very fair; John starts his speech stating that they’re not scientists. He’s stating that if the science says x is happening and we need to do something, then this is the cost of doing y, and that’s why it’s better than z which costs more. This is perfectly reasonable.”
But thats the whole damn point Michael. The science does not say that. The science says the opposite. And Humphreys doesn’t want to know. We ought to listen to the science. But Humphreys thinks otherwise. What the science says is that we are on a planet with a one-way-cooling bias. That extra CO2 is good. And that it doesn’t warm the planet but if it did this would be our good fortune.
Reply
Graeme Bird says:
May 27, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Tim how can you claim that John isn’t in favour of the carbon-tax. He has obsessively plugged this outrage through thick and thin and even started plugging it after party policy had been closed during an election. Thats just something that John says to try and make out he’s a free-enterpriser.
And what argument of Johns is anyone expected to respond to? John appears to believe that the science doesn’t matter. That extra CO2 has to be classified as a purveyor of a “positive-externality” in Pigouvian terms, appears to be totally irrelevant to John. I put it to you that this is straight irrationality. Since whereas it is a pernicious notion that we ought to tax negative externalities a case could sometimes be made in extremis. But its straight irrationality to suggest that we must tax a positive externality. Its a bit embarrassing even bringing Pigou into it. But even in Johns own terms he is rebelling against his version of economic science. Its a ghastly act of triangulation. And he has to expect to take the heat for it.
The policy must follow the science. Economic policy cannot ignore the science. Because the science is what tells us what the effect of CO2 is on the biosphere. And the effect is that it makes the biosphere more robust. It increases net primary production. Giving benefits to man an nature. In fact any attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels will directly hurt agriculture, supposing they would be successful. This is the direct affect on hunger quite before we start talking about the devastating effect on energy production this tax would have and the appalling precedent that would be set by compromising with leftist dishonesty, irrationality, and with what appears to be the fascist wing of environmentalism.
Reply
Graeme Bird says:
May 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Prodos offers a whole string of counter-arguments with his written comments over the video.
Its straight irrationality to pretend the science doesn’t matter. Since whilst its pernicious to be encouraging the taxation of negative-externalities on a Pigouvian basis, its at least understandable. But to tax positive-externalities is the straight irrationality that Humphreys has stuck with through thick and thin.
Why cannot Humphreys resolve the scientific question? Is this beyond his powers as an analyst? I’m saying it is. This is another example of an attack on heavy industry. This one-two punch to capital and energy-intensive industry is designed to impoverish us all. It will come hard on the heels of the damage that fractional fiat money already does.
For Humphreys to advocate a carbon tax and to think that one can do this whilst ignoring the science is irrationality that I’m just not used to.
The scientific argument MUST PRECEDE the economic argument. As it turns out those that get the science wrong also get the economics wrong. But its important that the science comes first. Yet Humphreys wants to ignore the science and actually thinks he can do this and thats fine. This is consistent with Humphreys behaviour more generally. With arguments in general, Humphreys just ignores the ones he finds convenient to ignore.
Reply
Graeme Bird says:
May 27, 2009 at 10:47 pm
The science is easy. Since the data has CO2 having no effect on temperature. Which means that the effect is either nothing, or (if a warming effect) too small NOT to be beneficial. Since we live in a brutal and pulverising ice age, and we have to presume we are near the end of what would naturally be an interglacial, obviously we ought not look a gift-horse of industrial society in the mouth were there found to be a warming effect. The science is resolved in that sense. The science is resolved for our purposes since any effect must be too small not to be good (if warming) on the grounds that were it stronger than this it would have shown up in the data.
The above argument really is unassailable and has been so all along.
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 8:02 am
“I really don’t understand why the science geeks seem to be all over the issue of how to deal with AGW seeing the solutions etc. requires an understanding of economics etc and most wouldn’t even know what a demand/supply curve even looks like or what it is.”
You have to go with the science first to be able to see if we have a problem. We don’t have a warming problem. But you being an idiot you want a carbon tax anyway.
Libertarians ought to be coming down hard on these anti-science carbon tax lunatics.
Where is the evidence that you have a problem that a carbon tax will solve? See you don’t have that evidence. And there is no use ignoring the science to play make-believe that you do.
In this context Humphreys performance at that ludicrous CIS conference. The man-bear-pig conference we ought to call it following Prodos…. Well it was just an idiotic conference. Here he was ignoring the science. So what was the problem he was supposed to address?
The rest of us have to come down hard on these lunatics, traitors and belligerent irrationalists.
Comment by Alfred J Nock | May 29, 2009
Does anyone here think that the planet is too warm? Is it just too hot where you live or is the planet too warm in your view? The planet is cooling did you know that? Do you mind waiting awhile and seeing if you STILL think the planet is too cool in the 2030’s when it will be a lot cooler than it is now? What temperature do you think would be good for the planet.
Supposing the planet was overheating. That is suppose we had a real problem rather than a fantasy problem for lunatics like Humphreys?
Well how would you deal with it? The science tells us that the last thing you would do would be to put on a carbon tax. You see thats a fantasy solution for a fantasy problem entertained by morons like Cambria.
The science tells us that we can cool the planet down very cheaply. But that if you put on a carbon tax that won’t cool the planet at all.
So at no point do you DO-A-HUMPHREYS and ignore the science. Unless you are a lunatic, a useless analyst, and a know-nothing pathetic economist.
Comment by Alfred J Nock | May 29, 2009
By: graemebird on May 28, 2009
at 10:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This is where we’ve got to pitch. We people on the right and in the LDP. Its not being nasty to get thousands of taxeaters to clear their desk.
Being nasty would be not giving our pensioners living in squalor a bit of a break. Letting them live out the rest of their lives without having to live in filth and financial fear is not the worst thing you can do to the budget so long as you are increasing the retirement age one day every two or one day every three.
But closing down one department each day isn’t nasty at all. You can give them twice the payout in tax exemption vouchers. Its more a blow to their ego than anything. All it means is that they come down to earth and be normal human beings and have to pay their way like everyone else. They have to accept a lower status in the cosmos is all. Stop fooling themselves that they are saving the world from us dreadful taxpayers who are in reality keeping them alive and bringing up their children.
Thats where the savings can be made without us being hurtful, harsh and callous.
And also now that you are here Terje. We have to segment the market. We are not getting more than 1% of the taxeater market in any case. So thats a vote we can afford to forget about. We’ve got to be the party that can cut tax, run surpluses, revamp business by reducing non-business spending all around, and seamlessly move to private 100%-backed money without any glitches.
You’ve peddled that debt-loving Jive long enough. That was a magical glass key that Wanninski and the others gave to Reagan and it was fantastic but you only use the glass key once. Perhaps if you were a bigshot in the Liberal party you could lay out the deficit spending Jive for the final year before going for re-election but that voodoo-economics is just not appropriate for a minor party who needs to practice much more powerful market segmentation.
Chodorov
29 May 09 at 3:20 pm
By: graemebird on May 29, 2009
at 9:25 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
You’ve made the wrong response Sinclair. Your response to my criticism ought to have been to come clean and sort your act out. Not block my posts. There will be a severe working out of bile if this continues. You must have known it was unacceptable for you to run down Gerry Jackson, go in for taxing a positive externality, and claim that us losing manufacturing was in accordance with the market.
You had it coming to you so take your medicine and live with the pain.
By: graemebird on May 29, 2009
at 9:36 pm
Very interesting blog you have here Mr. Bird I think is correct? I came across it on Google researching Expanding Earth, a theory that I am utterly floored that geologists aren’t taking seriously. I’m setting up my own blog to discuss my views, which seem to parallel yours, on the breakdown of science and the flock mentallity of the scores who have been programmed by public academia.
I’ll get back with the link when I am satisfied with my writing.
I would like to also praise you for your tactics in dealing with the fucktards who challenge you here. You are more a man than I, because I deliberately avoid ad hominem…where you seem to be a master of it. My observation of these scientific discussions is that condescension is the mode of operation and I abhor people who parrot textbook subject matter without a trace of critical thinking, and it insults me that these do-nothing walking textbooks consider themselves of superior intellect based on public funded education (or trust fund as the case may be) that any mollusk with a valid birth certificate can obtain.
Anyway keep up the good fight…one thing though that I wish to mention. I also read your entries about Martian photographic evidence of artificial structures. I am not here to challenge your conjecture as to their origins, and I find the pictures intriguing…but one thing I seriously, steadfastly believe is that men of logic presenting alternative theories have to be careful with our credibility. I’m not saying we should worry about what these dimwits think of us, for they and their opinions are irrelevant…but our job is to be persuasive I think and credibility is an important tool of persuasion like it or not. I am sure you really believe the evidence is strong, and there is nothing wrong with having conjecture filled conversation about it, but in some fashion I believe you must distance yourself from it as convinced as you may be. It is a nuance thing I know.
But this is YOUR BLOG and you certainly have my respect. You are indeed a strong minded thinker amongst coma suffering vegetables. Kudos
By: HR on May 29, 2009
at 9:47 pm
“I would like to also praise you for your tactics in dealing with the fucktards who challenge you here. You are more a man than I, because I deliberately avoid ad hominem…where you seem to be a master of it.”
Well you aren’t quite right there. I specialise in straight abuse and leave the ad hom stuff to others.
As to the Mars thing. Its all speculation until we have the ground truth. You might think it looks like the final breaking of Fermi’s paradox and certainly what we see there is a challenge to our understanding of geology and ought to be investigated for that possibility alone. But until you are there scratching about one has to allow that there MAY BE some other reason for what seems to be evidence of an ancient industrial setup.
I only say that given the evidence available that an industrial outpost, millions of years old, looks like the best paradigm available to me.
I don’t see why people get offended by that and start pretending they see nothing like Hogans Sargent Schultz.
By: graemebird on May 29, 2009
at 10:06 pm
I know man, and I agree. I think NASA should make a priority of investigating the most interesting and unexplainable features on the planet instead of just collecting rocks and taking pictures of sand dunes.
Also, I want to give you food for thought…this is something I plan on covering in my blog…
When do you think the real breakdown of science occured? I have a thought on that, at least from an American perspective.
I am a believer in Evolution, like you I see multiple lines of converging evidence. But the theory of Evolution is also responsible for hijacking science.
The reason: The tug-of-war between academia and the religious, the one-upmanship that occurs. This ridiculous battle has dragged lame ideas like the big bang in with it. Religionists need to LET GO of their genesis ideas, because those ideas are irrelevant to the the purpose of religion. Science has got to get that huge log of a chip off its shoulders and realize it has no business in matters of ethics,politics, or general morality. The both of them have contributed greatly to society and culture and at once have blundered too. But both are useful and can operate independantly without worry of the other.
If you read science blogs, and if you make life long observations of people as I have, you come to realize that scientists are often MORE motivated by disproving religion than they are of the science they involve themselves in. It is a sick obsession that needs to end. It clouds their judgement and hinders progress and makes them look juvenile. I’ve see it countless times. You claim to be athiest, and I respect that, but what I respect most is you don’t seem hellbent on defining your beliefs by disproving the beliefs of others.
So Evolution is a strong theory, and I believe it deserves mention in textbook studies, but undo focus is placed on it in school environs. Evolution has redefined the significance of THEORY in the classroom, and opened the floodgates for the fantasy thought experiments of pencil necked physicists and mathematicians. Children no longer know how to differentiate between observable fact and cool sounding theories anymore, and they no longer critically think about their strength and merit. By design, classrooms are indoctrination factories. Ever heard of a student getting an “A” for challenging a theory? It doesn’t work that way.
I could go on and on here, but you understand where I come from on this.
By: HR on May 29, 2009
at 10:49 pm
Thats a possibility. The origin of species came out in 1859. And a religion seldom just get wiped out in the centre of world power. It goes more like that Hegelian deal with thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.
I’ve a hunch what happened in the 1860’s people had to scramble for a reason to still be a religious believer in the 1860’s. I know that Immanuel Kant made a very big comeback in the 1860’s. And wound up as the key canonical philosopher in what became modern philosphy in the period after. Which may or may not be a bad thing. But if he were press-ganged into being a sort of methadone trip for former religious junkies that could well created some serious distortion.
It certainly would be better if disputing paradigms were taught in parallel. Like evolution taught, with the criticisms to it as well. And the alternative paradigms. Because it appears to me that the curse of the lone paradigm is really what the problem is. These dudes walking around with one paradigm, and it may well be substantially right. But to have one paradigm in your head is to lack any perspective.
By: graemebird on May 29, 2009
at 11:03 pm
I like the comments about paradigms. Yes, I fully concur. One does not have to agree with competing paradigms to at least explore, understand, and respect them. In the world of science, every paradigm that isn’t consensus or peer-reviewed is automatically “crack-pot”.
everythingithinkabout.blogspot.com
Feel free to visit my blog
By: HR on May 30, 2009
at 12:08 am
See that you people at catallaxy. You see that you people at grodspost. You work hard enough eventually you will get quality showing up on your blog.
By: graemebird on May 30, 2009
at 12:32 am
logged moderated posts:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
THE FOOLISHNESS OF THINKING THAT ITS COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE RUINING OUR MANUFACTURING.
There is about ten aspects to this story. I’ll just go over one of these every two or three days for the benefit of Humphreys and Sinclair so that hopefully, after they have been educated they won’t bugger it up again.
Here is a tape on the economics of inflation by George Reisman. But what is notable for it, just for our purposes, is at the end of the tape he gives a mathematical example of the one-two-punch of the company tax, when teemed up with fiat fractional inflation when it comes to those types of businesses that depreciate heavy capital equipment.
We are not talking about the full scope of the damage that our monetary system does here. Rather we are explaining why it disproportionately buggers manufacturing. As compared to services companies of the type that might have equipment that can be depreciated in a far shorter time and as a far smaller proportion of the scope of their operation.
If you can get to the last three minutes of this tape and get out your pens and paper and try and reproduce his mathematical example then I don’t see how you can ever be flippant about the devastation of monetary debasement on manufacturing ever again. Its of the nature of things that you wouldn’t notice what was happening at first but the net result would be as bad as carpet bombing or the mob taking over all the manufacturing neighbourhoods.
The combination of inflation and company tax is fully able to produce the rust belt phenomenon via this PARTICULAR source of devastation all on its own. But there are other reasons fractional fiat devastates the economy. Which I’ll deal with by and by.
[audio src="http://mises.org/mp3/MU2003/MU03-Reisman-4.mp3" /]
Its just the last few minutes that we are interested in here and it takes a pen, paper and calculator.
The example starts with:
“… This comes under the heading of ‘tax effects’. A lot of people find this quite surprising. This is a table in my book. “Effective inflation on the nominal rate of profit and the taxation of profits…..”
It ends with
“…..This is… an incredible RACKET.”
Chodorov
29 May 09 at 11:37 pm
Come on guys you have to make up for the years you white men hae been oppressing everyone.Get with the program
tal
29 May 09 at 11:39 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
By the way this also can be seen as part of the reason for the economic miracle of massively expanded GDP in the war as opposed to the depression. GDP isn’t the best indicator in the first place. But whilst contractionary money can have people everywhere on the verge of bankruptcy this surface appearance of things can mask serious subterranean business rejuvenation. Just as the apparent prosperity of monetary inflation masks capital consumption as in the Reisman example.
Chodorov
29 May 09 at 11:41 pm
By: graemebird on May 30, 2009
at 5:49 am
PRODOS GOES TO GREAT PAINS TO LEAVE THE ISSUE CLARIFIED FOR ALL COMERS. SO THAT MATTERS ARE SET FORTH CAREFULLY, SO THAT ANY NEWCOMER CAN EASILY GRASP THE ISSUES AT HAND.
I TEND TO RETALIATE TO THINGS THAT ANNOY ME ONLINE. SO ITS ONLY RIGHT, GIVEN WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO, THAT HE CUTS ANYTHING OF MINE THAT DOESN’T FURTHER THE GENERAL CLARIFICATION OF A GIVEN ISSUE.
By: Black ninja terror zombie on May 30, 2009
at 5:56 am
Logged post from elsewhere:
Graeme Bird says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 31, 2009 at 8:58 am
No not thats not right. That was my initial assumption. That was my apriori assumption when I first debated you on this issue. If CO2 did have a warming effect that would be a good thing of course it would. That part ought to have been obvious. We are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. We have been in an ice age for 39 million years. But its most brutal phase has been for the last 3 or so million years. When the glacial/interglacial cycle switched from typically around 40,000 years to around 100,000 years.
So based on what we know we are at the end of an interglacial. Without human action we would go into a glacial period which is of course a disaster. Like a Western Front lasting at least 60 000 years.
So obviously if CO2 had a warming effect that obviously would be a FANTASTIC BENEFIT. Now that was my initial best guess and you say that would be an odd position. But its so shatteringly obvious that I cannot imagine where you are coming from.
After investigating this matter I have learned that though the idea that CO2 warms is an attractive one I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO BELIEVE THIS. Since it is a FACT that no-one has ever found any evidence that CO2 does now, or ever has, warmed the planet near sea level on a global basis. Such evidence is totally missing in the historical and archeological record.
Now my point is this. It could be the case that CO2 has a tiny net cooling effect. It could be the case that CO2 has a tiny net warming effect. It could be either way since whatever effect it has evades the data. It goes under-the-radar of the data (as it were.)
Now if the effect of CO2 is a net warming effect, it therefore is an unassailable position that THIS IS A GOOD THING.
This position cannot be assailed. It is the right position. It is the truth and there is no gainsaying this position. In many areas of life typically objective people who mean well and who are familiar with all aspects of a problem can differ as to their conclusions and these varying views might not be the result of some fault or other in logic.
But this is not one of those areas. I assure you that my position is totally unassailable on this matter. If the effect of CO2 is a warming effect, it has evaded the data so far, and therefore (if warming)it CANNOT be strong enough NOT to be a GOOD THING. This is the truth of the situation.
By: graemebird on May 30, 2009
at 10:02 pm
logged moderated posts:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Chodorov is not an expert on fractional reserve. I am. Probably he isn’t writing about stuff that he doesn’t know about.
Fractional reserve is always going to be fraud. Since it never stops at the point where the one bank and the one customer enter into some pact to practice it…. just the two of them. A ridiculous and ahistorical understanding of the matter.
Sooner or later the customer or the bank is going to want to transfer or spend the pyramided-or make-believe cash. Thats fraud.
Chodorov
30 May 09 at 9:12 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
MACROMANCY:THE ROMANCE THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME.
Its come to my attention that some of you believe that by increasing the loanable funds via frational reserve, you are in effect increasing the investment resources available to the country.
This idea that you can JAZZ UP nominal loneable funds and that doing so increases the resources of a nation invested. Well thats childish macromancy. And we have to put it away with the toys. This childish superstition is the real reason most people here keep holding onto this cash-pyramiding menace.
But under capitalism the rate of a society progressing economically will be determined chiefly, not by the nominal value of loanable funds. But rather by the PROPORTION of Gross Domestic Revenue spent WITHIN BUSINESSES and not by government and consumers.
Yes you might add back some fraction of infrastructure spending one supposes. But increasing loanable funds does not increase the proportion of resources used within business. It creates a whole series of changes that do the opposite of this. Whats more it makes the money spent within business less effectual. Its worse still if normal people borrow money to invest under these conditions because then we are going into debt typically for the purpose of inflating house prices or producing other bubbles.
The set of circumstances amenable to business and normal people investing in such a way that their gain is a gain to the community more generally is the set of circumstances under longstanding conditions of “growth-deflation”. This is where nominal Gross Domestic Revenue is never falling back.
Gross Domestic Revenue is Growing as slowly as possible but never falling backwards. And also where nearly all prices are falling. Certainly consumer prices. But perhaps a lot of investment goods, not land but shares in small companies and the like. These investment goods would be growing slowly in price.
To achieve this set of circumstances with or without a central bank and with or without commodity money we need to get rid of fractional reserve. Once growth-deflation, or growth deflation most quarters is acheived, then we can be sure that money spent within business and for investment purposes is being spent wisely. Where the investors payoff is societies payoff. Then the way to have a faster progressing economy is to have as much of gross domestic revenue devoted to productive expenditure (business-to-business spending) as is possible. But reducing government, making it a good idea for people to save and so forth.
Showing up under this ideal situation and getting the banks to expand nominal loanable funds via JAZZING capital markets with fractional reserve will not increase the PROPORTION of GDR devoted to productive expenditure. In fact it will, at least over time, reduce this proportion, and it will make that spending less effectual.
I’ve seen enough to know that just about everyone here harbours the childish magic-pudding view of fractional reserve. Fundamentally this makes the Australian tribal view of economics a cult and not a science.
Chodorov
30 May 09 at 9:21 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Gerry Jacksons latest piece:
“Bernanke, you see, believes that adherence to the gold standard aggravated the Great Depression. It eludes him — as it does so many other commentators on this subject — that it was not the gold standard but deviations from it that created the boom bust cycle. A moment’s thought should have told them that a pure gold standard is incompatible with fractional reserve banking. In short, the monetary system was a quasi-gold standard.”
You would think that people would understand this. But Macromancy is the love that dare not speak its name. And Keynes was after all a homo.
If you have your 100% backing, everything is running smoothly, and then people start practicing fractional reserve immediately thats going to distort prices and the flow of resources throughout the entirety of the capital markets. You are telling the market, right down to the miners and the importers, that you have gold (silver, platinum, copper, specific shares or whatever you happen to be pyramiding) that there is more of this about then there actually is. And that information goes onto supply curves (so to speak) affecting prices everywhere. Robbing suppliers of their market price, arm-twisting them to produce less, reducing their income and reinvestment, and just generally creating the havoc you would expect as if the government were setting price ceilings and alternatively dumping and starving the market of the pyramided good for no reason at all.
Chodorov
30 May 09 at 9:32 pm
By: graemebird on May 31, 2009
at 3:35 am
Mr B
I was lured from my bunker by a story crackling across the Short Wave to the effect that the Usurper had decided to put a Muncher of Fish Tacos on the Supreme Court.
Yes that’s right – a Lesbian Mexican will now have the final word on the rights of our American Cousins.
Here she is in all her glory.
http://www.washblade.com/2009/5-29/news/national/14598.cfm
It’s all over. FIrst the Usurper and now this. Soon the only surviving right will be the Right to Carry a Concealed Double Headed Dildo.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 31, 2009
at 4:30 am
Brilliant comments on Fractional Reserve Macromancy, by the way, Mr B.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 31, 2009
at 4:31 am
Yeah. But not convincing to Humphreys at least. Soon hasn’t yet let these through. His normal record would be to let them through and then lie to uncommitted third parties but first wait for some idiot like Mark Hill or some bullshitartist like Regulator Reynolds go and confuse everyone.
But I laid this on Humphreys and the dumb bastard didn’t comprehend it. He came back with the excuse that increasing loanable funds via fractional reserve does indeed increase the proportion of GDP used for investment.
See the dumb cunt, when he doesn’t want to know he simply starts talking about something else. He’s right. The companies will post greater nominal profits. Since the money creation will jazz up their nomimal profits. Then the so-called net investment, which is pretty much profits minus taxes and dividends, this will be recorded as being higher. But that doesn’t mean there will be any more new resources than otherwise. Its all an accounting fiction.
What happens in this case is producer goods prices will be blown out as will the trade deficit.
I was talking about the proportion of gross revenues subsequently employed in business. This is the truer figure. Far less subject to manipulation by merely inflating the currency with pyramided loans.
With regards to the blow-out on the trade deficit he wished that all away by merely pointing out that every country has fractional reserve. So how can that be the cause of our persistent trade deficits, since after all this applies to all parties and deficits will equal surpluses all up. He didn’t word it as clearly as this. But I hadn’t even got into why specifically we, the Americans and the UK have these persistent problems.
But he’s back to this gig where he’ll just sweep away any reality he doesn’t want to consider.
That you would have to be a superstitious loon to imagine that pyramiding up some loans can create new resources for business just escapes him. I’m afraid he’s not too bright. He’s not the smart kid that people are making him out to be. He’s simply not capable of sound logical inference. And yet everyone is treating this idiot as if he were some sort of Wunderkind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah so this fish-taco-muncher as you say. I don’t suppose there is any use asking if she has got a history of fidelity to the original intention of the constitution right?
So we have a political-Usurper choosing legal-Usurpers for the top job in interpreting the constitution on the basis that they will not do their job and on the basis that they will definitely break their oath.
Barry Beige really is an evil bastard. Hard to imagine that people this damaging live and breath the same air as us.
But he might try so hard to destroy everything it backfires. He might try so hard to destroy the currency the Americans repudiate all their government debts and go onto 100% hard money. He might work so hard at destroying the United States that the great experiment in liberty is enhanced by individual states termporarily seceding to practice a more perfect freedom.
Soetoro the third Barry’s evil and usurpation is so over the top that he might end up turning everything on its head as if Hitler were unwittingly the true founder of the State Of Israel rather than just what he wanted to be. Which was the destroyer of Judahs wandering children.
He might end up leading to a rebirth of freedom simply by trying too hard to enslave everyone.
By: graemebird on May 31, 2009
at 5:07 am
I’ve sold out all the original shares I’ve bought at a profit. From a 10 000 dollar kitty in January I’m up 3000 or so. But minus credit card costs and the like. I’m going to have to sort out my affairs better than this or the banks will just take all my winnings. Might have to get a home-equity loan or something. I’m long overdue for a meeting with the accountant.
Right now I’m looking for some shares to buy. Its hard work. The pressure is really on. Since with such a small kitty you cannot afford to make any mistakes. I cannot really afford what happened the last time either. Effectively I had all this money in the freezer for about four months. I had to wait for these shares to bottom out and make a comeback. I came to the conclusion that part of it was the regulations to do with Share Purchase Plans. So I’ll have to watch out for that this time. The last thing you want to do is buy some crowd and then they immediately announce a share purchase plan. That can leave you with six months for the shares to recover after being overbought and diluted. So I cannot afford for that to happen again.
Its probably a little bit of a social faux pas discussing such a piddling stake. But I wanted to make the point to my readers of how careful you have to be before you go buying anything when you have so little to work with.
By: graemebird on May 31, 2009
at 5:20 am
What is also troubling is that since Hussein-Soetoro is an illegitimate usurper so to is his Candidate for Supreme Court Justice.
What happens in 10 years when Soetoro’s Kenyan Birth Certificate is proven and finally the MSM works out that el Lesbiana is an Usurper also and all of the 5-4 decisions she voted on were actually 4-4.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on May 31, 2009
at 5:25 am
What is supposed to happen is that every act he performs as usurper-President is a further criminal act. So technically she would have to step down. Everything would be made null. Every last decision. But thats not likely to happen. The founders never expected to have a population go stark raving mad and think that it was just fine and dandy for everyone to operate ruthlessly outside the law.
The United States cannot hold together under this scenario. And their salvation will come, if it does, from each State, none of whom will wish to buy into the Federal governments debt, pulling out of the union and even putting up a fence to stop people advantaging local state welfare.
Unbacked paper money apparently lasts on average only 7 years. This ones been going on since Nixon. But it really looks like it has only 3 more years or so to go maximum. The States will have to pull out and some of them start their own currency. It just takes one of them to decide on 100% backing. And become the new Holland of its era.
By: graemebird on May 31, 2009
at 5:35 am
There is one way that the above scenario doesn’t need to happen. That is by Bernanke going to a reserve asset ratio of 100% to stop inflation when it breaks out. And sending every last bank bankrupt. Since they won’t be able to make squat without the pyramiding. And on top of that the Congress deciding that it will never spend in deficit again.
Thats about what it would take to stop galloping, if not hyperinflation at this late stage.
But as we have seen these macromancers would rather live without both lungs then be quits with fractional reserve. And the people on the public tit in America have now reached a critical mass wherein they would rather see galloping inflation rip across the Republic, as opposed to just accepting that they all have to get a job in the private sector.
So the steps that could salvage the situation at this late stage will not happen. Hence the Republic will fall apart like some sort of common garden variety ponzi scheme.
By: graemebird on May 31, 2009
at 5:40 am
Logged post from elsewhere.
Graeme Bird says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 31, 2009 at 8:43 pm
http://www.brr.com.au/event/53901/cnx-2008-annual-general-meeting-mr-andrew-dash-chief-operating-officer
If anyone wants to look at the sort of activities that the carbon tax will inhibit the above shows a bit of a visual explanation of the good stuff that is going on. One thing that is so horrid about the carbon tax is that it will impose costs on people who try to engage in activities like this even before they make their first dollar in revenue. It will impose millions of dollars of costs on people like this even prior to them breaking even and turning a profit. As bad and as unacceptable as the company tax is thats one feature the company tax cannot replicate for rottenness.
It actually can be irresponsible in a sense, for company management to conduct in new share issues if their shares are undervalued. You see then they are getting less valuable cash in exchange for more valuable shares. So they dilute their shares at the expense of current shareholders who they are supposed to be working for. Hence if under the depredations of an interventionist economy there are companies with permanently undervalued shares the rate at which they can or should grow is crippled and brought down to a snails pace.
Putting a carbon tax on companies like this therefore will not just persecute them. But it will persecute the rest of us as well. I would have though singling people out for this sort of abuse for no reason at all ought to discourage anyone from doing so regardless of the consequences for the nation entire. But I’m trying to appeal to all sorts here.
There is a bit of a story going around that a carbon-tax will help nuclear. Nothing could be more foolish than to think this. Typically nuclear projects don’t get off the ground in less than ten years. And these delays are where the costs are. The delays are caused by environmentalism and the multiple tiers of government these guys would have to work through. Imagine ten years of paying carbon tax on all the energy you are using sticking a nuclear plant up and not a single dollar of revenue!!!!
The whole idea is to diminish, discredit, trash and walk over under and through the environmentalist movement so that we can bring down nuclear commissioning times to three years. Nuclear and hydrocarbon energy are complements not competitors. Or at least not competitors primarily. Actually nuclear will make all sorts of hydrocarbon projects that much more viable. By providing heat, steam, electricity and hydrogen to help turn pretty much any organic material into a range of hydrocarbon fuels.
Nuclear fission with Uranium and Thorium will also make deuterium fusion more doable if that ever gets off the ground. Well presumably it will. Because it can potentially supply the neutrons for heavy water.
This has to be an iron law of energy economics. Or it seems that way to me. The law being the energy sources have to be seen as primarily complementary.
I’m a technology optimist too. But technological progress is embedded in capital update. And energy is embedded in capital update. So that anything that directly increases the price of energy will reduce the rate of capital formation and update and inhibit the general environment of technological improvement. Its one thing to declare oneself a technological optimist. But then the idea is not to do things which throttle that golden-egg-laying goose. For the sake of the goose primarily. But also for the sake of the rest of us.
By: graemebird on May 31, 2009
at 9:47 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The chances of my comments being passed on Sinclairs thread are zero. How dare you criticise the Keynesian multiplier, he must be saying to himself.
But the The History of a Science is nine-tenths of that science. People who don’t take this point of view are always getting sucked in by the current fashion. If the history of economics was more emphasized it would be hard to sucker people into idiocy like the Keynesian multiplier. The really good economists typically emphasize the history of economics. Even the sound historians who aren’t Austrians tend to have this background in the history. For example Thomas Sowells specialty was in the history of economics.
Chodorov
31 May 09 at 8:08 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
A case in point is Humphreys and Sinclair getting sucked into the idea that Australia is losing its manufacturing due to the law of comparative advantage. No economist schooled in the history of economics could have ever fallen for such feeble tribal baloney.
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 2:11 am
Mr B
WHo are these fuckers who censor your best work?
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 1, 2009
at 3:32 am
Actually I’m logging it here just in case they do. More so I won’t forget what I’ve written. But they appear to be passing most of it.
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 3:45 am
Hey check this out. NASA has a new prediction for this solar cycle.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
Actually there is not a great deal new here. But anyway it really means we are going into another little ice age right about now.
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 3:47 am
NASA always has an agenda so you have to take that with a grain of salt. Certain communities have excessive influence, if you know what I mean.
NASA has been suppressing evidence of galactic energy for decades. I don’t believe anything they say.
This latest report is just setting us up for a fall. There’s always an agenda.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 1, 2009
at 3:52 am
The Galactic Energy paradigm renders sunspots moot. There is no mention of Galactic Energy anywhere in this report.
Mr B, I am inclined to give this latest NASA report a “Conceptual Audit FAIL”.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 1, 2009
at 3:54 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
We want to sort this out once and for all. Can MACROMANCY create new goods that were not there before? I say that this cannot happen. That instead what happens is that the extra pyramided money can only inflate producer goods prices, or other prices, or blow out the trade deficit. In some contexts you might be able to claim it can increase employment. Or stop the FALL in prices. But thats neither here nor there. Since the conditions which would allow those assumptions are where the ponzi-money practices have brought the unemployment about in the first place. That slight aside is not really relevant to the wider story of macromancy that all here seem to believe in.
Humphreys swears over and over and over again that this magical process, originating in simple embezzlement, can magically bring real new wealth into being.
It makes you wonder why the Zimbabwaens aren’t the richest people in the world.
This total superstition is what they appear to be teaching in Australian economics class.
The students cannot tell between real resources and cash balances. Between cash and money. Between nominal loanable funds and the goods and services that they buy.
These people use phrases that they cannot themselves define. Like “liquidity” for example. Or “liquidity matching” or any phrase with liquidity in it. Rather than talking with clear language that allows them not to stooge themselves.
The Australian economics graduates cannot seem to rank concepts as being not quite good enough. Or workable but not the revealed truth. So they will swear that there is really such a thing as an opportunity cost. They will see that as a cost just as valid as someone stealing breaking all your windows. This despite the fact that the accountants don’t need this concept and couldn’t use it if they tried.
They will all line up to swear fidelity for the Keynesian multiplier yet not one of them can find evidence for it. Or make a solid argument for it. And while I’m at it they don’t appear to know what evidence is.
The state of economics in this country really is shocking.
Chodorov
31 May 09 at 10:15 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Cambria you are in favour of a carbon tax. Since there is no real problem that a carbon tax can help with this is irrational and it is this treason by morons such as yourself that is keeping this movement going. Because no-one believes the arch-crazies any more.
Chodorov
31 May 09 at 10:18 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
There is also no problem that bank cash pyramiding, or the pyramiding of shares can help with either. But you support these practices also.
So its idiocy all the way down the line with you. A true traitor and a moron.
Also you supported stealing off normal people to give to the banks. Yet there was no problem that this could help with either. So its always the same with you Cambria. You are stupid. And stock picking is easy. So there. Thats the truth of it.
Chodorov
31 May 09 at 10:21 pm
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 4:25 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
We here see why none of you can accept Gerry Jackson’s emphasis on the fact that bad monetary policy is part of the reason why we are losing our manufacturing. Why you guys persist in this wrong version of Comparative Advantage as the alleged cause. Since you don’t want to believe that there is any cost to this magic pudding that seems to keep giving. No land price inflation. No blowout in the trade balance. No combining with the company tax to create capital consumption in those companies that must depreciate heavy fixed capital over time.
Because you guys actually believe that these extra loanable funds ARE CREATING new resources. So you won’t bring yourselves to see where these resources are coming from in reality as opposed to in the economics fantasy of yours. This goes for Sinclair also. Humphreys reports that Sinclair confidently assured Gerry that our loss of relative manufacturing power came down to comparative advantage. Ignorance and macromancy I sez.
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 11:05 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
No thats all bullshit Mark. There is no substitute for learning the material. You have no idea what fractional reserve does to the price system because you’ve never bothered to learn how 100% backing works.
Actually you are such a chucklehead its unlikely that you’ll ever understand fractional reserve. Normally I tell people that if they learn how 100% backing works first then they will find it not-impossible to comprehend fractional reserve, which is vastly more difficult.
But in your case, you being such a dumb chucklehead, without any fixed or understandable definition of anything, well in your case I would go against my normaal guidance and just suggest that any understanding is congenitally beyond you. And that you will do much better giving up now.
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 9:14 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Here we see the idiocy of Cambria in full flight. In logic Cambria and Humphreys ought to be grouped under the same public policy rubrick as Lambert. Having acted like even greater lunatics then Lambert and advocated following policy that is designed for a problem they don’t believe in.
Get it through your head Cambria. You are a coward, a natural born traitor, not smart, and useless to society since stock-picking is dead-easy.
By: graemebird on June 1, 2009
at 9:16 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“GMB,
What effects are those? Do you mean:
* Effective use of scarce resources
* Better matching of people’s time preferences for consumption and investment
* Return for depositors’ funds
* Less bank fees
And the many other benefits. Are those the ones you mean?”
1. Idiocy. Its not an effective use of scarce resources. Monetization is the effective use of scarce resources par excellence. The resources are brought out of the ground earlier and husbanded longer.
2. The opposite of the truth. 100% backing is the perfect matching of savings and investment. It cannot get better than that and this is specifically what fractional reserve cocks up. You must have gotten this rubbish from Humphreys. No two people could be that stupid and not be inspiring eachother. It just shows what a dishonest prick you are given what straws you are ready to grasp at.
3. Ludicrous. What could be more stupid than this? When a bank gets a short-run high-interest opportunity instead of having to raise the term loan from his customers he doesn’t even have to tell them about it. He can just embezzle their funds. Under 100% backing to advantage the opportunity he must bring the customer into the deal.
4. Utter bullshit. My goodness man. We know this to be wrong. It is eGold that has the least bank fees. Under 100% backing transactions are virtually costless. Since all the funds are cleared funds from the start.
Conceptual audit fail on all points.
By: graemebird on June 2, 2009
at 3:32 am