Posted by: graemebird | October 26, 2009

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

GUEST POST BY Dennis Brooks.

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

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

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

Dennis

CRAM SCHOOL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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

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

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

The Planetary Dynamo System is Even and Balanced
Summary:

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

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

Watch The Dynamo in Action

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

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

QUESTIONS AROSE FROM MY INITIAL INVESTIGATION:

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

Lets rephrase that for clarity:

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

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

The Questions THAT arose from my initial enquiry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I SEZ:

    “You switch gravity off for a fraction of a second the planet would explode.”

    FATTY SEZ:

    Ever heard of a little thing called inertia? Or don’t you believe in that either?”

    SO I SEZ:

    Just think a little bit harder fatty! I may have a view of the compression of the hydrogen of the sun that is somewhat different from yours. But clearly this hydrogen is, in your view, under compression right? So if you turned off the gravity of the sun for one year right? Obviously the hydrogen would expand outwards, would it not?

    Whether you think so or not it would expand outwards….. FOR SURE ……. AND HOW! Actually it would be like some sort of supernova I think. But nevertheless we ought to agree that this hyrdrogen would expand outwards in some pretty massive way.

    But all bodies which express significant gravity are the same. Each force is matched by an equal and opposite force. Any static matter, even Mount Everest, that is subject to a lot of gravity, must be matching that “inward” force of gravity by an outward compression force. There is no getting around that.

    So if the gravity force is turned off, the outer compression forces would get to have a field day.

    You are starting to get smarter fatty. So I will judge this latest non-comprehension on your part, for the moment, as an honest mistake on your part…..

    (Sinclair. Prepare for my last statement to go to Fatty’s head. And let me retaliate if it does.)

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Barry’s credentials are are green as they come, no one would have better green credentials than he does. They should listen to him. In fact everyone should.”

    But thats not what is good about him Cambria. Its pretty clear to me now that people who have an aptitude for science are not necessarily going to show it if they fall for the dogma of THE SERIAL MONOGAMY OF PARADIGMS in the way that Barry did. For you to take up his cause, without caveats like you are doing….. well for starters:

    1. Its an attempted end-run around me. Because I have recently changed my mind about him simply on the strength of how he’s been able to master and communicate all aspects of nuclear fission to a very big following on the left.

    2. Its an end-run around me. Since you want to find an excuse to justify your CO2-Bedwetting, and since I’ve been promoting Barry, you want to use HIM as justification since I’m hardly going to start running him down right now.

    “For you to take up his cause, without caveats like you are doing….. well for starters:”

    3. Its running down the excellent scientists who got the scientific method side of things right THE FIRST TIME, before Barry showed us that he really was on the side of angels with his nuclear energy promotion.

    Can you not lend some support to the pilloried Jennifer Marohasy? She’s just the best. And now she is wandering inner New South Wales carrying a ball and chain, on account of her society not being righteous enough for her. And perhaps with me being the last straw on the camels back when it came to getting her fired.

    Yes Barry has his virtues. But Ahura Mazda Cambria. It ought not all be about you and your post ergo hoc excuse making. Ian Plimer would have to be the major scientist in this country. And a string of other guys who knew that there duty was to be skeptical when there was no convincing evidence presented.

    Despite Barry’s VERY RECENT good works. You cannot seriously put him in the same category as these long-term righteous guardians of what science is really about.

    Stop it.

    Stop doing this.

    It ought not all be about you you stupid banker prick.

    You are fucking rich man. Why don’t you give Jennifer some money hey? As penance for being a Jerk since Paulson arrived on the scene. I’ll tell you what. You contribute ten grand for Jennifer, I’ll assume you are not longer to be regarded as a Quisling.

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I’ve been recently pushed very hard in favour of anti-abortion. Part of it has been the background of growing global governance and pressure in favour of various death cults.

    Since Skeptic has shown up and I have argued quite vigorously against her, I must reinforce the fact that I still stick with an approach I took narrowly prior to the last time I saw her.

    In my view, forgetting all the eugenics that is in the air for one moment, at the beginning of the pregnancy the strongest right is with the mother. In the first two weeks for example, we just have a collection of cells, and neither a brainwave or a heartbeat.

    Towards the end of the pregnancy, as much of a putupon as it is, the prior right has to be with the baby. Has to be. And if the rest of us have to pay the Mother a very strong pension to get her to agree to bring the child to term well so be it.

    I cannot abandon my friend Philomena on this issue. As much as I see CL pilloried.

    I want all of our girls to make a quick and binding decision. My motto with abortion is what Jesus said to Judas ” What you must do do quickly”

    For this reason I agree with Philomena, to the extent that if the girl is within the time period wherein we say that a termination is non-barbaric ACCORDING TO LAW….. then she ought to get all the assistance she needs to do the act quickly or renounce it for all time.

    Since this is SO important to the strength of our consideration of the value of human life this one time I would say that it could be public funded, this operation.

    Make the decision one way or the other as quickly as you can. And get all the help you need if its within the time period. And make it easy for the girl.

    Otherwise might it easy to come to term.

    BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES COMPEL MEDICAL STAFF TO VIOLATE CONSCIENCE.

    Philomena. I can see where your concerns are. But there has to be a better way about it. In ancient Hebrew times and in the times of the Saracens and the Sumer’s it used to be called ADVERTISIING.

    If we can make the choice easy, costless and yet binding. Then we can bring the time window down to where the child is mostly a collection of cells. Then we can lavishly help the girl and make the operation respectable.

    If you violate what is left of medical staff conscience, then you are going down the same track as the national socialists forced the German medical staff down.

    I see that you are working without my assurances, and so you will be pushing one way. And I’ll be pushing the other way I suppose, since I won’t be getting assurances that we will bring 99% of abortions in as close to the beginning of the term as a serious and generous (to the mother) focus on policy would have it.

    Chodorov
    26 Oct 09 at 4:51 pm

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I know that. I told her that and she did not email me back.

    What sort of racket are you engaged in Jason. That you people can cut her loose like this and let her wander the country taking photos of trucks on the highway?

    She’s the best that we have.

    Chodorov
    26 Oct 09 at 5:03 pm
    A CONFESSION? INSIDE INFORMATION?

    Can you not lend some support to the pilloried Jennifer Marohasy? She’s just the best. And now she is wandering inner New South Wales carrying a ball and chain, on account of her society not being righteous enough for her. And perhaps with me being the last straw on the camels back when it came to getting her fired

    I hope you feel appropriately chastised by that Graeme. Yes it is possible your commenting on her blog didn’t help her promotion prospects.

    jason soon
    26 Oct 09 at 4:53 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/gone-walkabout/

    Look at this. This is what your constant unrigheousness and whoredom has done to Jennifer.

    She is a female Billy Budd. The best, the brightest, the cutest. She now walks the earth like Ebeneezer Scrooge’s former partner.

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Chastised isn’t the word Jason. Mortified is more like it. But I’m up in hock to the credit cards and to the banks bigtime. I have other girls, not excluding my Mother that I need to help out. I figure I owe this girl bigtime. I just don’t know when I will be able to make any sort of contribution.

    You ought help her and keep the receipt. Do it for the sake of Karma, and for protection should my people get the upper hand.

    Contributing to her when she is really down and out may one day amount to a get out of jail free card.

    The door is closed for redemption simply on the part of promoting nuclear.

  6. No joke. They point the gun at you. You come up with the receipt. They holster it, or someone like me will wheel the gun right around on them until they back down.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “dude, I don’t make the employment decisions at think tanks. don’t blame me”

    I’m not blaming you like 100% man. I’m blaming you about point 1 of 1%. But thats enough for you to help her out with a 500-spot and keep the receipt in a very safe and secure lock-box, free from fire and water-damage under all circumstances.

    You are luckier than Sinclair. My crowd might be so putupon we might require Sinclair to carry a rifle. But you would get off from that duty Scott free on account of your immediate first impressions look about you.

    But imagine if things are this bad. These receipts could then be so very valuable. Think about it. There would be nothing more valuable to show your goodwill to this country.

  7. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ““So if the gravity force is turned off, the outer compression forces would get to have a field day.”

    I’m no physicist, but my understanding is that cancelling one action cancels its opposite, because it’s not two forces, it’s one interaction.”

    You idiot. This moronic, out of context statement, preceded by fucking wordgames.

    You are an idiot Jarrah. And for this I blame only your mother.

    Now just get this.

    For every force there is an equal and opposite force. Imagine therefore the force of compression of hyrdrogen atoms in the sun? Imagine that? And what would happen if you suddenly could turn off the equal and opposite force of GRAVITY?

    What would happen Jarrah? Fatfinger?

    Lets put it this way.

    You have a compressed air tank in space? The lead or steel that the compressed air tank is made of gives the equal and opposite force against the air that is compressed and wants to explode outwards.

    The compressed air in this case is not balanced by gravity. Rather it is balanced by the material of the tank.

    This time we take the material away?

    What happens to the gas?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Do you get it NOW??????? Fatfingers????????

  8. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Birlab. Its you that doesn’t understand anything. I understand special relativity, for example, only too much. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that Einstein was a creative genius, and a prophet of sorts. But Special relativity is crap. I say this because I understand it. And the big bang, and most of all Keynesianism.

    Now Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I don’t have a great handle on either. But I know that they are built on shaky ground and fundamentally baseless. Preditive templates only.

    Its because of the hubris of the serial monogamy of paradigms, that we have gotten to the stage where the entire corpus must be redone from start to finish.

  9. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Cl. Phil has softened on the compulsion side a little bit. She’s keeping a stiff upper lip of course.

    “Philis, you aren’t particularly bright.”

    Smarter than you’ll ever be Cambria. She’s a good girl and if she’s reasonable to CL and sweet to Tal I’m always backing her like the fucking terminator. So you will get no traction being nasty to her. Or saying grubby things that would make her want to take a shower rather than show up here. There is no payoff for you being nasty to Philomena. This is something you will not gain from. I can back off but not from THAT. You will always lose from such an undertaking. Make you woggy woggy cost-benefit analysis accordingly.

    Now listen to this great artist and attempt to find some human feeling.

  10. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Alrght lets have a look:

    “GMB,
    I do get it. You say that some form of energy (type unknown, but possibly gravity waves)……. ”

    WELL THATS JUST A FACT? DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF ENERGY IT WAS. DO YOU HAVE THAT ENERGY GRADED, AND TYPED AND CATEGORIZED? I DON’T THINK YOU DO!!

    “……can come from literally billions of light-years away……”

    Yes it CAN. But this one was more like thirty THOUSAND light years away. Big difference.

    “…. having travelled virtually half-way across the known universe and then be sufficiently powerful and sufficently focussed to shift billions of tons of rock several metres and not have any detected effects on anything else whatsoever……..”

    No you see you are lying. And I thought this would happen. You see Andrew you have started lying. And you being a bankster, and pedro being sub-human, I suppose pedro might have encouraged you.

    ” This form of energy can also travel just a little bit faster than light……….”

    NOT NECESSARILY. But probably it can travel a LOT FASTER than light. There being no inherent restriction to breaking the light speed arbitrary limit….

    “…… so that they can get here before the observed and associated Gamma Ray Burst (GRB)…….”

    Thats a no-brainer. Even for a fucking dumb banker or even a lawyer. If the one travels faster than the other. Which one is going to get there first?

    Third parties bear in mind. Its these morons, and people like them, that have set us up in the fix we are in.

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    You are acknowledging that I was right about the other stuff aren’t you?

    I’m not going to give you a hard time if you are just showing that you GOT IT after a little bit of prompting.

    The NEW thing you bring up is very complex.

    I would actually let them do it so long as its where people don’t current title. And I would let them (thought not necessarily be happy about it) so long as the people can build as high as they like.

    Its interesting that you asked my that Jarrah. You see from a hunter-gatherer point of view no-one has the right to cut someone off from the rivers and the coast.

    So its not one or the other Jarrah. I can see how I could support this if we talking about completely righteous and Angelic philosophers. But surely you and I know that its all going to come to tears.

    But I’m pretty happy that you’ve shown you’ve been listening to me enough to ask me that question. And I’m sure you will understand the complex reasons I cannot give you a yes or not answer.

    But what I can sat is that under my version of homesteading the first high-rise would be a great deal back from the beach. And the last few hundred metres towards the beach would have been privately allocated in the exception, rather than the rule.

  12. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    BANKERS: NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME.

    When it comes to the bankers, it has finally reached this time in America.

    And its about time it came to this around here too. These bankers have at last gone too far. They’ve shown their fangs. And nothing will ever be the same again.

  13. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Quite amusing, but actually not far from the plausible. You will have to be careful there, GMB. Coming up with even plausible arguments may destroy your reputation. Checking through your comment – Powerful gamma rays would be detectable by a thermometer as there is the observable reality that gamma rays will heat things up – ”

    No you would not detect it that way. You’d have to theorise about it after the fact. Is that what you are doing? Because it is by no means a bad punt. I think you would have a fine theory going down here.

    You could theorise that it was the gamma ray blast on the 28/12/2004 (still the 27th American time I think) and other energies originating from the same source, (for example the same blast could have lead to an increased solar wind), could have had a follow up of X-rays not strong enough to alert NASA and for them to have to confess to the rest of us. (You bet they wouldn’t confess unless they had to. Since this would imply that some types of light lag a tiny nano-fraction behind others. Hence a challenge to the outrageous dogma and sanctification of c)))

    And in any case all the collective energetic effects, direct and indirect, could lead to some versions of the temperature record showing a decisive reversal of a cooling trend in 2005. Which is what did happen. Although not in the imbedded ocean joules as far as I know. But thats a very complex matter.

    But you could never have detected the gamma ray burst from a single thermometer reading…. collated this reading. Theorised about it, and proven your thesis, to some degree of satisfaction, at the time and with a single thermometer.

    Rather you would theorise about it after the data came in more than a year later. So no you could not detect gamma rays with a thermometer. It would take many thousands of thermometers, a lot of conjecture. And a great deal of time.

    Good thesis by the way Andrew, if that is your thesis. Supposing that is in fact your thesis. I’m going to steal it and run like a thief in the night.

    If thats what you are claiming there is a good chance you are right. And it ought to be looked into. We had been cooling, by some measures, since 1998, and by other measures since late 2003. And in 2005 the air temperature was decisively turned around to warming again.

    The event that caused the gamma ray burst is a very conspicuous potential culprit now that you mention it. Because that same event could have lead to gamma rays warming the air, and extra solar wind, which would have wound up warming the air later on.

    The same event would lead to more electrical energy warming the sun and the earth on top of that. It may lead to an electro-magnetic pulse at the speed of light. That would follow up on the Gamma or be caused by the gamma.

    But mainstream electrical energy is going to move around the galaxy very slowly in comparison to light. So we can expect this event, in my speculative view, to be helping us out for a long time to come. The gamma rays will go presumably at the speed of light or a scintilla faster. And the other barely known shockwave a tiny bit faster than that.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    My hypothesis is that the shockwave runs along the Gaede ropes. And it disintegrates some of these Gaede ropes as it does so. I’ve got plenty of reasons to believe in the Gaede ropes. But my hypothesis about the shock wave disintegrating some of the ropes is just a punt.

    So in this hypothesis the shock-wave will go faster than light, because if it did not it would not destroy the ropes. It will go a tiny bit faster than light along the same ropes that light would normally travel. If it went a great deal faster at first I’m assuming that this would simply manifest as the more fullsome destruction of rope. Rather than vastly higher speed than light.

    These ropes allow electricity, and electro-magnetic energy to travel around the galaxy. But they are also responsible for the force of gravity.

    The gamma ray is in fact light. But I don’t think we have timed gamma rays? I’m not sure if we know if gamma goes the barest fraction faster than the rest of the spectrum. And NASA is going to be useless in this regard.

    They say it came from a neutron star? But they talk as if the neutron star is still there???? But in my view we can likely still see the neutron star only because the normal light is travelling a little bit slower than the gamma. I’m fully ready to be proven wrong pretty quickly here.

    But for that much energy to be produced we would already know that this neutron star had been horribly diminished. So why have they not said that the neutron star is now horribly diminished?

    Bulsshit-artists is what it is.

    Chodorov
    27 Oct 09 at 3:16 pm
    Leave a Reply

  14. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Interesting:

    WSJ on TARP: we were wrong.”

    They really had no excuse to get it wrong in the first place. They were coming from the point of view of total ignorance. And now an entire country, civilisation, and Republican experiment may be unravelling on the strength of this ignorance.

    But you saw why they were ignorant CL. Because if anyone tries to tell the monetary economics story straight the usual mental maffia shows up and any chance of learning is corrupted. We have years of threads of doom proving just this.

  15. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “DD, as I’ve said, I and most women have zero interest in what any man says about our reproductive selves.”

    But if I brought on a pro-life woman, would you be sweet to her?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    THE EXPLORATION OF PHASE-IN-LAW.

    I’ll have to go on talking despite my gender handicap. Now to me it would be philosophically “comforting” as it were, that the definition of when life and non-life, starts and finishes FOR LEGAL PURPOSES be standardized at both sides of the spectrum.

    We decide when someone dies by virtue of brain wave and heart-beat. When there is no brianwave and-or no brainwave reading we say they are dead, when its the old guys.

    So to me a pleasing convergence for legal purposes would be to put the window of opportunity for our girls to have a termination at 19 days gestation or so.

    Taking this point of view the widespread availability of the morning after pill would become a legelo-ethical necessity. Since not having this product readily available would risk the termination being later than 19 days.

    But 19 days is not a practical cutoff biologically. Its certainly no serious starting point. Since your average babe be past 19 days the first time she notices she has missed her period.

    So failing 19 days well how about 7 weeks? Here we are saying if you don’t get the morning after pill, because you thought your own contraception was adequate, and you miss a period, you check it out, do some intense soul-searching. Talk to your most trusted guides and confidantes, perhaps even burst into tears and stuff, or even consult a financial planner. But you make the binding decision prior to the second missed period.

    This then would be my backup ideal. I wanted 19 days. But now I see I can only really hope for seven weeks. Or 50 days lets say. This for a healthy baby. Maybe 100 days if you can prove an unhealthy baby. Downs syndrome or limblessness or something.

    But thoughts and data that billie and Philomena has brought to us make me think that bringing it down to seven weeks would not allow UNDER THE CURRENT REGIME enough time for a girl to find the information, get rid of the pressure running both ways and really think about it and then make the decision.

    But from the point of view of the sanctification of value we place on human life we are already into potential barbarism catalyst period at seven weeks. We don’t want to do either. We don’t want our girls to lack a meaningful choice early on. When I talk to anti-abortionists who I respect and who in my heart I am really on their side….. in the end I just have to tell them I have to have that window. Because the idea of our girls with coathangers or with them and a bag over their head or something. Smashing the already protruding stomach to get the baby to dies and rot and then induce an abortion. Any of that stuff. I’m told that it was not a great many tragedies by number wherein this happened prior to Roe Versus Wade, but supposing you make the restrictions and this happens. How you going to feel? So I’m really a closet pro-lifer who cannot quite go all the way.

    Now more than seven weeks is no good for our respect for life but billie and Phil tell us that seven weeks is way too short under the current circumstances.

    We’ve got to look into the idea of having phase-in legislation. The goal is to bring the window down to about seven weeks but have all parties pretty happy with what the girl gets in that seven weeks.

    I’m fine with more than generous welfare to almost bribe the girl going to term if she is already way past the point where she can get a legal abortion.

    The logic is that at the start of the pregnancy the prior right is with the mother. Its her body on the one side and only a few cells on the other. Then as the pregnancy continues the rights of the child grow and well before nine months is out the childs rights are paramount. But its a phasing thing.

    So we might have legislation that allowed a window of 3 months but slowly phased down to seven weeks as we had a chance to get services together.

    And we might have punishments phasing up slowly after seven weeks and falling mostly on the doctor.

  16. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Would you take away Monsnato’s patents?

    Quite possibly……. (clipped)

    Secondly, companies who discover new things accrue benefits irrespective of patents as they can put better products on the market, and thereby increase profits. (clipped) Finally, even if we assume that patents provide some benefits, the costs can outweigh these when local peasants have to pay a fee to grow patented crops, or the millions of Africans with HIV can’t afford any pharmaceutical treatments except through pirated drugs.”

    Even five years ago things would have been different. I’m now backing up THR and I believe Philomena on this one, although without callousness to current property-holders.

    In libertarian circles this matter has gone through a recent and pretty seismic transformation. The data now seems to tell us that with the possible exception of pharma patents, patents generally just get in the way. And it really does appear that patents are not part of the free market.

    Chodorov
    27 Oct 09 at 4:27 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “s there any evidence scientists such as Svensmark that are researching cosmic rays as the primary climate driver are struggling to get grants? Are Christy and Spencer struggling for funding?”

    Yeah probably. The fraud side of the argument has 79 billions minimum. And genuine enquiry 1000th as much.

    The point is that the fraud crowd don’t even have any evidence after 79 billion. And the fact of this is evidence in and of itself. If they were right, we could find out that they were right after spending almost nothing. But they are wrong. So 79 billion cannot conjure the desired result.

    Chodorov
    27 Oct 09 at 4:31 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Stolen money grants have to go. Thats the end of science. Because science isn’t about stealing and justifying it after the fact. Its about free enquiry. We can go with a tax-exempt research industry no problem. But me must never have a grant outside of defense. This is just the curse of the 20th century. Twentieth century science has been awash in error and voodoo thanks to the stolen money ubiquity.

  17. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “My uneducated guess is that differing angular momentum across the sphere would make it disintegrate. Slowly.
    It would definitely NOT explode.”

    Jarrah. Please try hard. Now its the simple application of the fact that every force is met with an equal and opposite force.

    So what is the force of gravity? When you have it there, before you take it away?

    Its massive. Its just huge. You have a radius of seven THOUSAND kilometres of material, cramping down oppressively on its own weight. Now always the force is equal and opposite. So what force is equal and opposite to this absolutely horrendous force of gravity? I mean its just colossal?

    There is no known situation, and not even any proposed situation outside of perhaps flying saucers where the rule does not hold.

    Imagine you got a really strong fellow. And you pile 7000 kilometres of shit on this fellows shoulders. Its going to be a lot of pressure right? Its just huge what is going on. Perhaps it gets less as you go down. But still the average pressure of gravity must be huge.

    And the opposing force is pressure. Which implies compression. And when you have compression, and you release the gravity force, then its not static force that is left.

    If you have a force, like in a spring-loaded catapault or something, the compression of the force is not a static opposing force. It has long legs. You push your hand against the scale and thats a short spring. It has no legs or reach. But the compression of 7000 kilometre radius of material has a lot of reach. Think of the same material at the same temperature in space?????

    It would be spread out. Massively spread out. Except for a few rocks at the surface.

    So just apply the rule. You have always and everywhere an equal and opposite force.

    You starting point is that compression and gravity equal. You take away the gravity. What is NOW the equal and opposite force that comes in to replace gravity?

    Well its not gravity right? So what is it?

    What is the candidate?

    You tell me?

    You’ve got to get this right fatty because you are teaching the kids.

    You know what the opposing force is in the first instance. Tell me what the opposing force is in the second instance.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    We would expect a supernova to set off a chain of exploding planets, moons and unstable stars, all the way down the line. And we may find out later that the blowup, that gave us the Tsunami, has done just that,

  18. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I’ve already told you. We already know that one. We have gravity. Ergo we have an equal and opposite force.

    And that is the force of compression. If we didn’t have gravity our atmosphere would not be compressed around us.

    So we have gravity, the equal and opposite force is compression. When you take away the gravity what happens? Attempt not to be an idiot.

    You have a tank full of compressed air. So the compression force is matched by the equal and opposite force of the tank. I have never known of compressed air without the tank to produce the force to keep the air compressed.

    You take away the tank, the air will explode.

    So if you could take away gravity, what is the fourth force that would assert itself.

    If you cannot get this you ought not be teaching the kids.

    Chodorov
    28 Oct 09 at 5:24 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I’m not sure, but an explosion is pretty far down the probability scale”

    Look you blockhead. Apply the rule. You never have a single force. Never. Not ever. Do you get that you dumb fuck?

    So what happens if you take away gravity.

    What is the equal and opposite force to gravity? There is one you know. Totally independent of you being a moron, if there is the force of gravity, there is an equal and opposite force. In line with everything everyone has ever experienced, forces come in pairs.

    Chodorov
    28 Oct 09 at 5:27 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I’m not sure, but an explosion is pretty far down the probability scale. If you take away the gravity, you also take away the equal and opposite reaction”

    No you don’t. Gravity and compression equally balanced. You take away gravity. How can the compression disappear? It doesn’t. Thats just you being a blockhead.

    So what replaces gravity.

    And this Jarrah has been disrupting relentlessly discussions to do with climate science for years. He cannot even apply the most basic understanding of physics.

    Chodorov
    28 Oct 09 at 5:29 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I SAID

    “There is a force to balance that gravity.”

    IDIOT SEZ:

    What’s it called? How does it work? Where does it come from? I’m all ears.

    ITS COMPRESSION YOU FUCKWIT. WHAT ELSE WOULD IT BE. What else was it going to be? What do you think? What a fucking moron you are? Did you think you could get air pressure like what we have here happening in pockets in space?

    I already told you it was compression.

    Look you fucking moron: Every force has an equal and opposite force.

    What was this pretense wherein you thought there was no opposing force to gravity?

    Chodorov
    28 Oct 09 at 5:35 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Lets go again. You are on planet earth. You are subject to the force of gravity. We have 7000 kilometres radius of material. There is a downward force pushing on presumably ALL OF IT.

    What is the equal and opposing upward force?

    Chodorov
    28 Oct 09 at 5:38 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Can someone else chastise this fuckwit for me and ask him not to pretend to have an angle on science ever again as long as he lives? This Jarrah has been a menace these last couple of years.

    Chodorov
    28 Oct 09 at 5:39 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Look you fucking moron. We have a before and an after.

    BEFORE.

    Gravity and compression balanced. Equally and in opposite directions. Gravity is pressing straight down. Therefore compression is pushing straight up.

    AFTER.

    We take the gravity away. We still have compression. What force asserts itself immediately to balance the compression.

  19. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “If/when there is an alternative cheap energy source, the switch will happen quickly.”

    No it won’t. It will happen only slowly. Shows how much you know.

    “Until then, aiming for arbitrary targets in a few years does nothing except hurt consumers.”

    So in your irrational view TARGETS are arbitrary. Yet reducing CO2-emissions is not?

    How about base policy on REASON. Instead of being an idiot. If thats not too much to ask.

  20. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Its a crap monograph. Total irrationality. Humphreys does not present a problem that a carbon tax is a solution to. His monograph is therefore moronic and senseless. Useless scientifically its more embarrassing from an economics perspective.

  21. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No you dummy. There is not much in the way of things in space for a shockwave to travel through. If the shockwave travels through an aether, and it goes the speed of light, it will be EXPRESSED as light. Don’t bring any time travel voodoo into it. Thats your supersition and not mine. Thats leftist projection.

    Now the fact is that the GAEDE-rope thesis is proven. If the shock-wave was travelling through the gaede-ropes at the speed of light it would in fact BE light.

    So it has to be travelling through another medium, or more likely it is running along the gaede-ropes destroying some of them. Gaede shows light to be torsion of these orthogonal ropes. The ropes rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise. But at the very least the shock-wave must be moving along these ropes DIFFERENTLY to the way light moves, or it would in fact BE light.

    If the shock-wave is actually destroying waves as it goes and using the destruction of these waves as an energy source to continue being propelled along, then the shockwave will be causing trouble all along the way. But mostly close into the galaxy where the matter is more dense.

    Thats how I would see it. I would see it as therefore by its nature travelling at a tiny bit faster than light. If it had more energy I figure it would merely destroy more ropes. If it travelled along the ropes AT the speed of light it would be light.

    Pretty simple really.

    So anyway it gets to earth. And it breaks up a few ropes here and there. Disturbs our gravity a tiny bit. Compression is the same but somewhere a tiny little bit of gravity is reduced. Thats enough for a slippage and a destabilization in the earth below. Leading to earthquakes, and were it a bit stronger to massive volcanic eruptions.

  22. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    From two different websites:

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

    “On July 4, 1054 A.D., Chinese astronomers noted a “guest star” in the constellation Taurus …….
    …… This star became about 4 times brighter than Venus in its brightest light, or about mag -6, and was visible in daylight for 23 days.”

    You can make these links all the way down the line. And it may well have been 20th century light-speed dogma which has stopped this linkage from being totally prosaic.

  23. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    From two different websites:

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

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

    “Major eruptions have even been responsible at times for literally changing the course of history. The Mataram empire in Java was apparently destroyed by a major eruption of Merapi in 1006 AD.”

  24. our comment is awaiting moderation.
    From two different sites:

    “Previous earthquakes in 1868, 1784, and 1604 ruptured the same segment of the plate boundary as the 2001 earthquake. Based on intensity and tsunami reports the 1868 and 1604 events were larger than the 2001 earthquake while the 1784 event may have been smaller. ”

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

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

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

    “Supernova 1604, also known as Kepler’s Supernova, Kepler’s Nova or Kepler’s Star, was a supernova which occurred in the Milky Way, in the constellation Ophiuchus. As of 2009, it is the last supernova to have been unquestionably observed in our own galaxy, occurring no farther than 6 kiloparsecs or about 20,000 light-years from Earth. Visible to the naked eye, it was brighter at its peak than any other star in the night sky, and all the planets (other than Venus), with apparent magnitude −2.5.”

  25. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Baitoushan China 1054 7 Stratovolcano

    Here is another site got it down to the year 1054 specifically. So there you are. 1050 is fine also. Because after all the shockwave will travel faster than light or it would indeed BE light.

    Now about Taupo. I had the same problem trying to get a date for Taupo. There were no Maoris to see this one blow and they would have been too stupid to write down the time if they were there.

    Same problem as before. I get dates of the year 200. That would have to assume rounding to the nearest half-century.

    You often have it cited as 180. But anyone who says this is rounding to the nearest 20 years or decade, or isn’t telling us just what he doesn’t know.

    The best one I got, who seemed to be taking the most care said 180 plus or minus six years.

    Now remember that the shockwave gets there first. If the shockwave got their afterwards then everyone would know about the association of the two phenomenon. But since the shockwave gets there first this has been ethnically cleansed. So we can let this fellow know that he can nail it down a little bit tighter than he has done so.

    He can nail it down to 180 plus or minus five years.

    Since we find out that:

    “SN 185 was a supernova which appeared in the year 185, near the direction of Alpha Centauri, between the constellations Circinus and Centaurus. This “guest star” was observed by Chinese astronomers in the Book of Later Han,[1] and may have been recorded in Roman literature.[2] It remained visible in the night sky for eight months. This is believed to have been the first supernova recorded by humankind.”

    So Lake Taupo explodes first. The Chinese see the supernova that caused it later on. Think of what space is. If the shock-wave travels the speed of light it will travel AS LIGHT. It has to go faster. Or it would not work at all.

    Chodorov
    29 Oct 09 at 12:22 am

  26. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Pedro. I’m impressed. Is it because I backed down when I was wrong on that moon-tunnel. Sorry for not believing you the first time.

    Make note. Pedro is good on space stuff.

    Now you see this shockwave is travelling just a little bit faster than light. So I’m saying that its probably destroying some of the medium that the light travels in. And if it were stronger, it would merely kill more of that medium, and so it would continue travelling only a bit faster than light. But if it slowed down to exactly light, it would probably just be incorporated AS LIGHT from that point on.

    Now since Gaede ropes are what light travels through, and since they are also responsible for gravity, you can see how a shockwave destroying these ropes, would set off a chain of destruction in the galaxy. And close in you might get planets exploding. But hopefully when it gets to us it won’t be that bad.

    But these events were all very very bad. And they are not the only ones. There is a supernova explosion associated with the volcano’s in Panama that fused North and South America together.

    See imagine you have an explosive shockwave thats travelling through the air. Now if its going faster than sound, well I don’t know how it will travel. But if it finally falls to travelling through the air at the speed of sound, the shockwave will BE SOUND. It will travel AS SOUND. So if it was doing nasty stuff before, shattering buildings, blowing eardrums, well after its just going to do what sound does.

    And light doesn’t blow up volcanoes. So it cannot be travelling at the speed of light and be setting off volcanoes. But you break the ropes that hold a planet together. Thats big trouble in little Toba.

    Chodorov
    29 Oct 09 at 12:40 am
    Leave a Reply

  27. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “A supernova was one of the initial candidates for the cause of the great mass extinction 65 million years ago in which the dinosaurs were wiped out, the so-called K-T boundary event. However, by the 1980s geological evidence seemed overwhelmingly on the side of a giant asteroid impact. ”

    See they’ve got it all wrong. The volcano’s come first. The other planet blows up about the same time as that and the debris goes out everywhere and revolves around the sun.

    But the volcanos here on earth do immense damage first. Then the gamma ray shows up just as one or two species are finally on their feet trying to make a fist of it. Who knows if the supernova becomes visible before or after the asteroid hits? But the asteroid itself was the result of the shockwave. Since this is what caused the other planet to explode.

    So these people who argue its volcanoes or asteroids or is it gamma rays that do you in? Its all besides the point. Since they are all coming ultimately from the same root catastrophe.

  28. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Imagine advocating that we be neutral to thieving, and not neutral to CO2-emissions, as is embodied in the Humphreys idiocy, and then thinking that this is going to be as akin to a sword to break free of the cap-and-kill menace with this advocacy?

    I mean you guys really have to get your head checked. Get that brain transplant you’ve been putting off. And get the sissy-tumour removal.

  29. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    ” He’s just shifting the tax base to less inefficient and lower rated taxes that are GDP positive and revenue neutral.”

    A carbon tax has no part in any such program. Get specific. What tax do you want to cut and why? Each tax cut can be made and financed with spending cuts. And thats what you guys ought to be concentrating on. But you not. You are concentrating on betraying us to other economists and to the left.

    The policy is irrational. Since you have NO REASON for it.

    And plus none of you guys are sophisticated enough economically to understand how harmful carbon tax will be. Least of all Humphreys.

  30. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “As for the carbon tax – let me be clear. My preference – as an AGW skeptic – is to do nothing.”

    Not good enough. You are soft-pedalling a second-worst alternative with a bullshit caveat. We’ve had Humphreys doing this for three years. We know the score here.

    “But a second best solution if we “must” do something is to have a carbon tax in preference to an ETS since it doesn’t constrain action by future generations.”

    You don’t have to do anything. So this must business is no good. Worst of all you have the scare quotes to give it a double meaning so you don’t even know what you are saying.

    Its not a second best solution. Its a second worst solution. This is opportunity cost dogma for you. It demands that you neoclassicals think in terms of a dummy solution and the solution that you have already told yourself you want.

    The best solution is to oppose the carbon tax. Just oppose it. Oppose it without reservations or caveats.

    The problem is you don’t understand the economics. Otherwise you wouldn’t be acting like a carbon tax is OK.

  31. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    See look at this. Humphreys cannot even get the easiest thing in energy economics right.

    “If/when there is an alternative cheap energy source, the switch will happen quickly.”

    Totally wrong. The switch happens always and everywhere only slowly. So you people just don’t know what you are doing here. And you refuse to listen.

    Chodorov
    29 Oct 09 at 1:49 am

  32. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Estimates differ and the best bet is to go with the lower value of distance. But the internet is telling me that the galactic centre is about 25000 light-years away. And the Adromeda galaxy is a lot further away than that.

    “By comparing the absolute and apparent magnitudes, Ribas’s team concluded the Andromeda Galaxy is 2.52±0.14 million light-years from Earth. ”

    Thats a thousand-fold difference. And the shockwave hitting us from a large supernova would be way drawn out and more diffuse one would think. Probably take a long time to set things off. And lead to a longer-building and longer-lasting disaster.

    Personally I think these things are a lot closer. As astronomers assume that if the doppler affect causes red shift ONLY the doppler effect causes red shit. I’m assuming the known universe is much more compact than what the mainstream assumes.

    Also between galaxies light might travel a lot faster than c. Because the paucity of protons could make it that the Gaede ropes are all lined up straight. The protons not have many other protons to branch out to like a porcupines quills. But rather they may be straight and so the possibility for must faster travelling light and shock waves is there.

    In any case dig this tie-up:

    “Supernova 1885, also later named S Andromedae (for the second variable to be discovered in constellation Andromeda), was the first supernova discovered beyond our Milky Way galaxy, on August 20, 1885, by Ernst Hartwig (1851-1923) at Dorpat Observatory in Estonia. It reached mag 6 between August 17 and 20, and it was independently found by several observers.”

    “The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa began in May 1883 and culminated with the destruction of Krakatoa in August 1883. Minor seismic activity continued to be reported until February 1884, though reports after October 1883 were later dismissed by Rogier Verbeek’s investigation.”

    Always the shockwave will move faster than the light.

  33. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “You cannot frame an argument as follows:

    1 X is the cause of Y.
    2 The evidence for X causing Y is Z.
    3 Z must be true because X caused Y.”

    Thats been my argument all the way down the page. With the magnitudes involved its pretty good going to get even one example. I got an whole bunch of them. Bringing the coincidence argument to a point of implausibility.

    “Claiming that a shockwave travelling at the speed of light would be light is not evidence.”

    Its a fine argument. You need evidence AND argument. And thats the argument side of it. Listen Ringo. Don’t pose as some sort of major league epistemologist. You don’t have it on the fly. If the shockwave is using the same medium, it would have to be light. Otherwise what other medium is it using? There is not a great deal of stuff in space.

    Sound is a shock-wave that uses air. Radio signals use the electro-magnetic spectrum. Electricity uses the wires, but a shock-wave through the air will be lightning. But thats not travelling at the speed of sound. Else it would be sound. Rather the electronic component of it is wrenching electrons. Not a shock-wave through air alone.

    If the shock-wave wasn’t moving faster than light, it would not have gotten here before the gamma-rays obviously. You’d have to be a blockhead to think differently. But that ought not be shocking. Since no evidence ever once existed for the light-speed limit. So all the evidence is going one way. You are not in a position to pull up the evidence bar on this occasion. Since you do not have evidence for c being a maximum speed in the first place. You don’t have anything to counter what I’m saying. Nothing at all. So your argument is weak. Mine is strong.

  34. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    No pedro. The fact is that this discounting story is bogus. Its economists giving the science fraud racket a free pass with bad arguments. If we are hurting the future we should stop doing so. Since there is no cutoff between generations we ought to add to, and not subtract from, our posterity each day.

    Consider that we ourselves can increase our own discount rate via sheer irresponsibility. So under this scenario our irresponsibility justifies itself. Since if we combine red ink and other policy irresponsibility with a high interest rate policy, well that will increase the interest rates. So plundering all our resources for the here and now becomes proven policy by this methodology right there.

    Hence the Cambria argument, and the Nordhaus argument. These are like the wooden duck that isn’t going to rise up from the lake. A fake-duck-argument.

  35. WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT? THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN CLEAR.


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: