Posted by: graemebird | June 4, 2009

Real Objects And Shapes In A Place Known As The LITTLE-WORLD.

(Brought to the front August 3 2010. My stats page showed me that someone had read this entry today. So this small post was brought to my attention. Most of my threads are put together in great haste and so few of them are of the quality that I feel I am capable of. But I like this short thread. And I think that people generally should have a go at understanding this short thread. Since people generally have a totally wrong and dysfunctional view of the scientific method, and of the science-academy, as it stands in 2010. I start off referring to the model of the atom, wherein electrons jump between orbits, known as “shells”)

This shell business is an excellent functioning model but it cannot be what is really going on if we accept that we have positively and negatively charged objects and that opposites attract.

This model “WORKED” and was invented by a puny human and it is unbecoming of scientists to go in for the cult of personality even if it was Niehls Bohr. Telling us the working template does not give us the reality. All objects that are real in this universe come in three dimensions. There is no reason to believe this changes in the LITTLE-WORLD. That all real objects come in three dimensions means that they can be described verbally, and an attempt to draw them can be had.

Now I know what you were trying to say. You were talking about primary concepts that must be rendered to sense-experience in order that we make a composite concept, to have a picture of an object in our minds eye. We can see in our minds eye a purple mountain. Because we have in our minds eye a mountain, and we have the other primary concept of purple. Putting the two together renders an understandable picture. But a micro-waved coloured mountain? A moutain in hews of differently graduated shades of dark and gamma? We cannot do it right.

It is this that you were giving as a reason for copping out on a working guess at a physical description of the LITTLE-WORLD.

I use the phrase LITTLE-WORLD advisedly. Because thats what it is. To describe it as the QUANTUM-WORLD is a gargantuan act of falling for ones preferred model. When one stooges oneself thusly, one is clearly only going to be talking about entities that exist in the MENTAL-WORLD and nowhere else.

Even now when explaining why nuclear energy and carbon liquids are natural commercial complements… even now when explaining why I think the nuclear plant and the coal liquification operation ought to be situated side by side…. I would explain how the goal is to get the plasma so hot as to have the molecules smash against eachother, breaking off the double-bonded outer-shell carbon-electrons, and the replacement of the carbon-electron with a single bonded hydrogen-electron. I would explain that if enough of this happens in a long chain of C’s O’s and H’s then the former solid will later condense to the hydrocarbon liquid or gas of ones choosing.

But just because one can visualise this working model, and use it as a predictive tool, does not mean it is the revealed truth or things as they are in fact.

If we accept that the positive and the negative want to hug eachother and the others want to repel, the obvious model is not the C-C double electron bond in the outer shell. Rather we ought to think of a fat electron contorted out of shape as part of it tries to latch onto a proton in the opposing nucleus, part of it latching onto a proton in its own nucleus, and much of this fat electron, being repelled by lazy fat other electrons, themselves similarly contorted, by the effects of the protons in both their own, and in other atoms.

Thats probably a more realistic view of what is likely going on.

But the Bohr deal is easy to understand when you are 14 first up. Then when this model is called upon to explain various subtleties, the model rapidly gets stupid.

The Niehls Bohr model rapidly becomes stupid, otherworldly and self-contradictory. That this model does so, is clearly the sign of an excellent working model that DOES NOT represent the reality. We see the clear fingerprints of a valuable model that IS NOT reality.

That this orbiting-electrons-model, works so well in simpletown, and then gets so complex when nuance is attempted….. Well these circumstances ought to be seen as the very symptoms of a great working model and not the characteristics of a model that explained accurately the way things are. Thats a wrong working model for you. The rapidity of how badly the thing “complexifies” is the giveaway.

The fault is with the epistemology and the sociological dynamics of the academy. Not with Neihls who did a bang-up job, even if he did fall for his own propaganda.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. logged moderated post

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I’ve told you what the story is Sinclair. By the way I got my degree before you did. If someone can tell you exactly what is going on and you cannot learn it under those circumstances you aren’t going to be able to sort it out in a month of Sundays.

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Lets clarify what we are saying here. Banks are always insolvent. They can be insolvent and profitable. But once they become insolvent and unprofitable if they have no RAR they are on the verge of collapse and can collapse at any moment.

    When it gets to that stage the central bank must bail them out on the sly. They can do so by subsidising them through low interest. Or they can do that by flushing in cash.

    If they flush in cash and they don’t have an RAR then the banks will cause grave inflation.

    Either way once the banks are both insolvent and unprofitable the central bank must bail them out or they will collapse.

    In the past we have seen massive additions to the monetary base at these times. We stopped seeing anything happening with the RAR a long time ago.

    This time neither Greenspan or Bernanke seemed to want to increase the money supply until it was already too late. Find the graph if you don’t believe me.

    But the idea is to flush in cash and produce an RAR to stop the cash being pyramided upon and therefore being inflationary.

    If anyone sez that anything of the above is wrong then they are simply lying or idiots and thats really the last word in it.

    Government implied backing would have to be utterly minimal if the RAR was at least 40%. Only at that point could we have anything akin to a free market.

    If Reynolds or Cambria say that I’m wrong they are just lying or full of shit.

    Chodorov
    4 Jun 09 at 8:22 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “This time neither Greenspan or Bernanke seemed to want to increase the money supply until it was already too late. Find the graph if you don’t believe me.”

    I meant to say:

    “This time neither Greenspan or Bernanke seemed to want to increase the MONETARY BASE. until it was already too late. Find the graph if you don’t believe me.”

    You can lie Cambria. And it might confuse people for a time. But ultimately you will lose because it used to be more or less just me and now others are getting educated.

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    All increases in debt are counterproductive. Since the too high debt was part of the problem that caused the recession. You want everyone to pay down debt. However under fractional fiat paying down debt reduces the money supply.

    So what you are after is more spending but less debt. The only way to achieve this is by a combination of

    1. Massive spending cuts.

    2. Tax cuts which boost employment and allow people to pay down debt more easily.

    3. An increase in the money supply.

    4. But with a reduction in ponzi-money.

    WHICH IMPLIES

    5. And increase in the amount of cash which is nonetheless less than the increase in the money supply

    WHICH IMPLIES

    6. The application of a reserve asset ratio.

    So you might want to increase the money supply by only ten billion. You increase cash be 30 billion. But you have an RAR to make sure the money supply only increases by 10 billion. Now the banks are both more solvent and yet less profitable. They can sell some of their branches to competitors to get some of the fresh cash thats out there.

    On the fiscal side you might cut spending in half. Maybe 3 billion a week. You want all those guys to get jobs right away so you are paying down government debt and private people are also paying down their debt.

    So what you do is you get rid of the payroll tax. You plead for wage restraint. You defacto get rid of the company tax by allowing the first $150 dollars any individual makes to be double expensed for tax purposes by one of the companies he’s working for that he nominates.

    So you want everyone paying down debt heaps. But overall spending to rise only a little bit and you see this is how you make it happen. By some combination like the above.

    Chodorov
    4 Jun 09 at 9:09 pm

  4. 4 Jun 09 at 9:08 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    All increases in debt are counterproductive. Since the too high debt was part of the problem that caused the recession. You want everyone to pay down debt. However under fractional fiat paying down debt reduces the money supply.

    So what you are after is more spending but less debt. The only way to achieve this is by a combination of

    1. Massive spending cuts.

    2. Tax cuts which boost employment and allow people to pay down debt more easily.

    3. An increase in the money supply.

    4. But with a reduction in ponzi-money.

    WHICH IMPLIES

    5. And increase in the amount of cash which is nonetheless less than the increase in the money supply

    WHICH IMPLIES

    6. The application of a reserve asset ratio.

    So you might want to increase the money supply by only ten billion. You increase cash be 30 billion. But you have an RAR to make sure the money supply only increases by 10 billion. Now the banks are both more solvent and yet less profitable. They can sell some of their branches to competitors to get some of the fresh cash thats out there.

    On the fiscal side you might cut spending in half. Maybe 3 billion a week. You want all those guys to get jobs right away so you are paying down government debt and private people are also paying down their debt.

    So what you do is you get rid of the payroll tax. You plead for wage restraint. You defacto get rid of the company tax by allowing the first $150 dollars any individual makes to be double expensed for tax purposes by one of the companies he’s working for that he nominates.

    So you want everyone paying down debt heaps. But overall spending to rise only a little bit and you see this is how you make it happen. By some combination like the above.

    Chodorov
    4 Jun 09 at 9:09 pm
    Sinkers is wrong usual. I actually know some people who got paid in March!

    Oh dear Forrest forgets who indeed was defining what a recession was back in the December quarter when sinkers in his hubris declared the March quarter WOULD be negative!

    Oh yes if it is a shallow recession then there will not be as much debt because the deficits will be smaller.

    Oh yes.
    real unit labour costs fell in the quarter.
    Quite remarkable given the state of the economy.

    Another one in the eye for those crackpots who wouldn’t know a deregulated labour market if they fell over it.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
    4 Jun 09 at 9:18 pm
    This is a really dumb question (I’m clueless about how these things work)how do we know when we are out of ressession?What are the signs?I’m asking a serious question

    tal
    4 Jun 09 at 9:55 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Tal you are out of recession technically when GDP grows for two or three quarters in a row but thats all a lot of nonsense. Since GDP is a good metric for some comparisons but not for quarter to quarter comparisons. Somebody might correct me on the number of quarters.

    Anyhow what we really want is two quarters of a pick-up in business-to-business spending. Forget all about consumer and government spending because its not relevant.

    If we can increase business-to-business spending without serious monetary inflation we have set up the basis for a recovery. Unfortunately no-one keeps these figures.

    Hence the idea is to STARVE(AH SEZ)STARVE government and consumer spending and control Gross Domestic Revenue to a level wherein business-to-business spending will be increased in both proportional and absolute levels. But not too much in absolute levels which would be inflationary.

    To get the proportional increase you use massive spending cuts. To get the absolute right you may use cash injection and a Reserve Asset Ratio if appropriate. The answer is always spending cuts. The answer is sometimes cash injection. The answer is never personal, business, or government debt increases.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “My view on this is that if you’re half way decent at your job you don’t need tenure.”

    Whistling in the dark. You were insufficiently good to be able to let me answer tals question earlier.

  6. You see Kelly if you had that idea that the electrons would fall to the lower shell and lose energy. And the electrons were these small little things attracted to positively charged particles….. Well that cannot be right. Because they would simply fall into the nucleus.

    So the model is incorrect. And can only be used as a predictive template.

  7. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    GDP equals C+(NET)I+G+X-M

    People have it in their heads that (net)I is fixed long-term machinery investment. Surely accountants will recognise that it is nothing of the sort though under some conditions the two might get close.

    What (Net) I is in line with rather is Profits minus tax minus dividends (as well as sole trader drawings). I say “in line with” because if I look it up there may be some subtle adjustment to be made.

    More spending, which can only come from monetary policy and cannot come from fiscal policy boosts the mathematical figure of this Net (I). Currency debasement boosts the nominal figure but does not boost what people have in their heads as to what this I represents. It doesn’t make fixed capital fall from the sky. To the extent that it suckers people into buying expensive new equipment it can cause a recession or a blowout in the trade deficit.

    The combination of this and suckering those same people into more and more debt can lead to manufacturing devastation. Particularly since these overstated profits lead to both more taxes and more dividends.

    Its better to FEEL poor and to in actuality be getting richer. If not for a person certainly for a country. And its a disaster to feel rich, be taking out new loans, earning big bonuses, paying big tax bills, the government starting up new aid programs, government departments sprouting in great luxury and generosity from the bludgers, and to actually be progressively impoverishing the nation. Its not good for everyone to be feeling rich but impoverishing themselves. This is what was happening not long ago.

    And if it weren’t for the idiocy of current policy the opposite would be the case. We would be putting together a future of prosperity even though everyone was feeling pretty pinched.

    Gross Domestic Revenue= C+ GROSS INVESTMENT+G+X-M

    Gross Investment is larger than all the others put together. This is the figure that we want to improve in order to set up a recovery. We want to improve this figure as a PROPORTION of GDR. But also we want to increase it slowly in nominal terms.

    Lets alter that a little bit. We want Gross Investment + Exports to be larger as a proportion, without trade barriers. Maybe a persistent creditor nation doesn’t have to think like that.

    So we want (Gross Investment + Exports)/ (Imports +Government Spending+Consumer Spending) to be a higher RATIO.

    Of course we could look at a number of ratios in the same way that it takes a bunch of ratios to make sense of a business. The economists want to tell you its all about GDP. Which means they are focusing on consumer spending and government spending. Which of course means that they are taking a superstitious approach to wealth creation.

    So long as you aren’t imposing trade barriers then the above proportion is something to improve upon. Which means of course massive slashing to consumer spending and government spending. How could it be otherwise? How on earth do people imagine that wealth is created if not by putting more resources into business development?

    Now while it is important to increase the proportion of total revenues being spent within business, that is to say increase the available REAL RESOURCES to business, it is also important to have the NOMINAL FIGURE of GROSS INVESTMENT (”business-to-business spending” or “Productive Expenditure”) growing slowly all the time.

    We need gross investment to increase as a proportion to get out of the recession and to have a developing economy. But we need it to progress SLOWLY in nominal terms all the time as well. And we need this because people have to be able to pay debts and because we don’t want everyone going bust.

    You see COST OF GOODS SOLD tracks after GROSS INVESTMENT in the next time period. Business-to-business spending will be or a least will be proportion to Cost of Goods Sold in the next time period.

    So if business-to-business spending grows slowly then you won’t have wild swings in profitability. If business-to-business spending soars then you will be setting yourself up for a recession in the next time period.

    You will be setting yourself up for a recession, since the resources don’t drop out of the air, you will therefore be forced to stop inflating, then business to business spending will crash, and since it was higher in the last time period the Cost-Of-Goods-Sold will be higher than revenues in this time period. Hence everyone will be running at a loss. Or at least the average profit levels will be negative.

    Therefore everyone will be squeezed and broke and you will be in recession.

    So we see the vandalisation of what Kevin has done. Here was the free market making everyone adjust. Here we were cutting dividends and bonuses. Trying to save more and not trying to grab too much more in wage. Business trying to pinch pennies and use resources with greater care.

    Less consumption, less imports, less dividends, less bonuses, moderated wage increases. All this would have meant a greater proportion of resources to business. Less to consumption and government parastism. Less to bigshots pouring gold on themselves.

    ALL THE GOOD STUFF TO SORT OUT A RECOVERY.

    Now it CAN BE true that one might have needed to boost overall spending a little bit to get business-to-business spending back up to prior levels in nominal terms and thereafter grow it slowly. But this is a monetary matter. And if anything, if you were going to flush more cash into the system you would want to work doubly hard at cutting consumer and government spending.

    All the above is true. And yet our economists are not telling us this. They have been sold on almost the exact opposite story.

    SUCH IS THE PULL OF GOVERNMENT AND FINANCIAL PARASITISM. IT SEEKS OUT AND PROMOTES FALSE DOCTRINE IN ALL AREAS.

    Such is the pull of government and financial sector parasitism. It has made all our economists ignorant.

    Chodorov
    5 Jun 09 at 7:19 pm
    Leave a Reply

  8. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Seriously. Does anyone have a year in which he was supposed to have accepted Jesus. And rejected that there is only one God and accepted the divinity of Christ who died for his sins on the cross. Did he ever accept the doctrine of the trinity?

    Being as you guys are sure he’s a Christian you may have an informed view on that.

    We don’t have a year. Was it the year he suddenly ups and starts calling himself HUSSEIN?

    He starts calling himself by an Arab middle name again the same year as he turns Christian?

    You all seem to have a theory about this but you won’t go into any detail.

    The evidence just says he’s a Muslim. If he isn’t then he’s not really religious.

    I don’t know what you guys are going on. Certainly not the evidence.

  9. “”I didn’t become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck – no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose – His purpose. “

  10. Thats electioneering. Where is it coming from? The campaign trail? And its spin coming from precisely the questions I’m asking. Its a direct response to the sort of points I’ve made.

    So he worked with these church folk? When was that? When he was a socialist agitator (community organiser) or was it when he changed his name to Hussein? His story doesn’t pan out and you don’t have a link. You’ve with-held the link for a reason. Find the link or get wiped.

  11. Reynolds campaign of lying in order to confuse third parties has started up again. This is my response to it. You have to jump on this compulsive liar straight away or we will have no end to it.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “GMB,
    Are you seriously calling for a socialist style “industry policy”?”

    Don’t be ridiculous Reynolds you idiot. They’ve just nationalised the car industry. Thats what I was complaining about.

    I cannot tell you how much I get sick of your fucking dishonesty Reynolds. I’ve been around here 3 years and have never suggested anything of that sort.

    And so your very questioning is an attempt to lie to third parties you repulsive puke.

    Chodorov
    8 Jun 09 at 1:15 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Can you find anywhere where I’ve called for a socialist style industry policy Reynolds you fucking liar?

    No you cannot. You are just an idiot mate.

    Chodorov
    8 Jun 09 at 1:16 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    How is Reynolds form hey? Trying to mislead people and hiding behind this dirty dishonest pretense of asking a stupid question. This is what I had to put up with day in day out for months on end with him and Mark when it came to these threads of dooms that these monetary cranks would keep going.

  12. Last nights Q&A. Featuring comic master, superstar-of-sovereignty, and Australia’s natural leader: Barnaby Joyce.

    [video src="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2964757.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep26.flv" /]

  13. “Do you think I can take credit for these Birdian thoughts, with my question about the double slit experiment the other day?”

    I saw the question and couldn’t figure what you were driving at. You also have no clue as to what you are driving at. This is so much like Mark Hill. Wherein he has an inkling, or an intuition, that he may be making some sort of logical connection. But he never has any idea of what that logical connection could be.

    So we have light going through the slits. Since light moves in waves you have the interference pattern.

    Next you have electrons moving through two slits. You also have an interference pattern.

    Now Steve ….. what was your point?

  14. Hiding behind dead people:

    “Well, that cleared that up!

    Graeme, Feynman said of the experiment:

    “[It] is absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery.”

    It works if you fire single electrons: how do single electrons interfere with themselves?”

    It doesn’t matter what Feynman says. We don’t do science via recourse to the cult of personality. What are you saying and why?

    What is your point? I’ve explained why the notion of the photon is untenable. Now try and think this through. Have you brought the photon back somehow with this story?

  15. A science worker tells you he’s fired a single electron. How has he singled an electron out? How has he observed a single electron? What is the interference pattern he is talking about? Is it a pattern of light? Or something else?

    Are we given to understand that the science worker created a vacuum prior to singling out this electron? Suppose you fire this single electron. How will it travel? How will you avoid that single electron interacting with a million other electrons?

    Sooner or later Steve has to say clearly what the point is?

  16. Norway may be Orwell speaking backwards. But when you want to commit science-fraud its Denmark you want. When bigshot science priests are proven wrong do they own up to it? No they all head off on a junket to Copenhagen.

    Look at the results of one of these junkets:

    “The Copenhagen interpretation is a consensus among some of the pioneers in the field of quantum mechanics that it is undesirable to posit anything that goes beyond the mathematical formulae and the kinds of physical apparatus and reactions that enable us to gain some knowledge of what goes on at the atomic scale.”

    Science? I don’t THINK-so.

  17. No in fact you are lying Birdlab. The slit experiment shows very clearly the wave nature of light, making the photon doctrine untenable. Simple as that. Why go into subjects that you have absolutely no understanding of. Remember Birdlab, you are just a dumb cunt. You’ve always been a stupid cunt, and there is no subject where your stupidity doesn’t show up.

    Now we see that light moves in waves. Which of course rules out the notion of it being made up of photons, which are held to be created ex-nihilo, and said to bugger off at the speed of light, from wherever these photons were born. This is incompatible with wave behavior. We have the slit experiment. Thats the proof.

    It could not be more simple. We can nail that one down.

  18. Economics illiterate Mark Hill buying the bogus labour party claims hook, line and sinker.

    “A Commonwealth subsidised abolition in payroll taxes would have seen similar bragging rights in terms of “jobs saved” (about 240 000) but with no deficit.”

    I’ve been blogging on Catallaxy since about 2005, when not banned, and this stupid prick has shown himself unable to learn anything in all that time. Note that he buys into this idiocy that squandering resources on shit, saved 240,000 jobs. He cannot for the life of him explain how that could even POSSIBLY be the case. But it doesn’t matter. The dumb cunt has fallen for it entirely.

  19. “I know it’s a lost cause, but for Graeme Bird:

    Description of the single electron double slit experiment here, by Hitachi’s scientist who devised it:
    http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html

    His video on youtube:

    Interference pattern builds up over time, as it does in the single photon version (even though photons don’t exist, I know.)”

    Thats all very fine steve-from-brisbane. But what is your point? You ought to have a point to all this?

    Now how is it that you’ve managed to verify that these guys can cut off-from-the-pack individual electrons? In the video the narrator says that each dot represents an individual electron. Why is that even the least bit plausible?

    How do they manage to cut-off, isolate and propel and individual electron? How do they do so without these allegedly micronised and separated electrons from interfering with electrons in the massive space between the “electron gun” and the targeted screen?

    I think we are seeing wave action here for sure. But unless these guys can isolate and tag each electron, and give it a sheilas name, then why are we assuming that its wave action ….. only to do with the electrons these people have selected and shot out of their gun?

    You see the whole story is not real credible.

    Think of the opening sequences of Futurama. Think of the way the airborne traffic moves in these opening sequences. Isn’t it more likely that the electrons in this experiment are moving similar to the cartoon? This idea that these guys can cut out an individual electron. the way they claim, and fire it straight, so that it moves to the screen direct and without impairment …. This passes no test as a credible story.

  20. The constant drumbeat of idiocy from Birdlab is just incredible. Now we have Birdlab posing as an expert on THE LITTLE WORLD. Somehow Birdlab knows …. He just fucking knows all about THE LITTLE WORLD.

    But he makes no argument beyond the Birdlab implied tone of voice argument.

    Here is what Birdlab quoted me as saying:

    “You see the whole story is not real credible.

    “Think of the opening sequences of Futurama. Think of the way the airborne traffic moves in these opening sequences. Isn’t it more likely that the electrons in this experiment are moving similar to the cartoon? This idea that these guys can cut out an individual electron. the way they claim, and fire it straight, so that it moves to the screen direct and without impairment …. This passes no test as a credible ”

    Magnificent. Keep quoting me over and over again and thats just fantastic. Because the kids seem to trust the public service ripoff artists and they all have to know better.

    But I’ll still beat up Birdlab should I ever meet him. What a fucking stupid fucking cunt he is. I’ll provoke him by vomiting on him, and then exploit any feeble retaliation on his part.

  21. Anyone else feel he is an expert on THE LITTLE WORLD?

    Perhaps if you feel that you have this god-given expertise on THE LITTLE WORLD you might like to put forward the logical argument that eluded Birdlab. A stupid cunt. But more fundamentally just a complete cunt.

  22. “Graeme, you couldn’t puch your way out of a wet paper bag… ”

    Try me fathead.

  23. So anyway Birdlab …. aka internet-tough-guy.

    What in fact is your argument? What specifically do you think I’m wrong about?

    You don’t have an argument do you you fucking useless cunt. And on top of that you wouldn’t have a clue as to what specifically you ought to contradict me about.

    You are just a fucking moron mate.

  24. See we have this situation where Steve-From-Brisband didn’t have a point in the first place.

    He cannot seriously be taking conclusions about the (non-existent) photon, on the basis of things he doesn’t understand about the electron.

    Should one wish to actually have a stab of finding out the reality of it, the best thing to do is to line up all the non-mainstream theories on the matter, and then go forward scientifically. That is to say take what you have. Take the many alternative theories off-the-shelf. Many pilloried and ignored people have been doing the hard yards pro-bono. Many alternative theories are on the table to explain these various phenomenon. But the public servants aren’t interested. Since they aren’t scientists they are priests and whores. (((The quakademics are more interested in getting access to these multi-billion dollar accelerators. That way no-one can challenge their hegemony, and their useless selves will have a meal-ticket for life.)))

    So for example where this electron phenomenon is concerned, should you be convinced by these wild claims at electron separation, you would be able to find maybe six non-falsified theories that might attempt to explain it all.

    Here is but one of these theories right here:

    http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=550

  25. NO YOU CANNOT CONFLATE MATTERS LIKE THAT. DON’T BE A RAVING LUNATIC.

    NOW ANSWER THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS HERE. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO SEPARATE OUT SINGLE ELECTRONS? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO SHOOT THESE ELECTRONS ACROSS A ROOM, WITHOUT THE ELECTRON INTERACTING WITH OTHER ELECTRONS ALREADY PRSENT? WHY ON EARTH WOULD A SINGLE DOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE ELECTRON?

  26. Wave-particle duality is not a serious proposition. Nor is it an explanation of what we see here. Rather its a theological doctrine inserted into the problem as a way for the public servants to be able to do the usual public servant shirking.

  27. GDP is not spending. GDP is only a small subset of total spending. Mark Hill and SOON were using Barro as the pretense of evidence for a Keynesian multiplier. I pointed out they were full of shit and asked them to show me where Barro WASN’T using GDP as his proxy for spending. I explained how the reason for a statistical false positive was simply that fiscal “stimulus” redirected spending from where it isn’t picked up by the GDP metric, to where it is picked up by the GDP metric.

    Sinclair linked a presentation by Barro at AEI. I’ve now listened to the entire presentation. As usual I’m shown to be right, and SOON and Hill are shown to be full of shit. Nowhere does Barro use any other metric than GDP, as his proxy for spending. Hence his presentation reveals no Keynesian multiplier. Barro’s research, whether he knows it or not, is research on statistical false positives for a Keynesian multiplier. It is not research on any Keynesian multiplier itself.


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

%d bloggers like this: