Posted by: graemebird | July 17, 2010

PZ MYERS/The Undeserved Arrogance Of The Young Universe Creationist Mainstreamers (The Bangers).

Expanded from a comment on this blog.

Thanks for that. But of course I don’t take it seriously. Although I’ll read it carefully when it comes out. Faster than light speed is an established fact. But nothing has been clocked at THAT much faster.

As you might know Ritchie, I consider all those at the PZ Myers blog as effectively “young universe creationists” as they all dutifully and through faith, believe in the utterly idiotic and unscientific “big bang theory.”

Now I know you are being sarcastic if you think I’m going to be buoyed up by some weird notion coming out of the “young earth creationist” Christian side of things.

But then again, sometimes these guys make interesting observations that others don’t make. So its worth listening carefully to everything.

When I posted at PZ Myers place, I gave you guys absolutely solid evidence that light-speed can be beaten by a very long shot, but that it appears that whatever it was outrunning light, could only do so for short periods of time. That it would then decelerate to pretty much the speed of light. I posted a link to that effect.

Of course gravity is near instantaneous. Were gravity to be the result of disconnected particle movement, it has been worked out, that gravity would have to move at 20 billion times the speed of light at least, to keep the galaxy from flying apart.

Since the idea that particles should fly off at 20 billion times the speed of light,for no reason at all, is quite a ridiculous notion ……… then the upshot is clear. The upshot is that each proton in the galaxy is connected, directly or indirectly to every other.

the mainstream always retains these fantasy conjectures that are all but baseless. The mainstream contends that the photon is created ex-nihilo…..

…((((( and here I will use personification))))

…. and never likes where it is right now. Without any known propulsion method it just hates where it is right now and fucks right off at the speed of light. This is contradicted utterly by the wave motion of light. Meaning that the photons would have to be going faster than light in reality but doing a sort of lambada. All absolute tosh of course.

Now the creationism of the mainstream does not stop there. They would have it that all known matter once acted in just this same way. They would have us believe that all known matter once acted the same way they think the photon acts;

……….. Be created ex-nihilo, in a once-only event, and to fuck right off to where it wasn’t currently. But finding that theory didn’t work at all they decided to have the space being created along with it.

All of this thinking is childish, stupid rubbish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE SECOND UPSHOT OF REJECTING MAINSTREAM CREATION THEORIES, IS THAT THE EARTH, MOON, AND STARS, ARE GROWING.

Now once we reject these creation theories, such as this idea of the photon being created and beating the feet the hell out of where it is……. And the idea of the matter being all created in this one-off event in a bizarro mimicry of Genesis …… That is to say once we have unlearnt the bullshit that we were forced to learn and are now nagged into believing…..

…. We note something strange. We note that there is a great deal of space. And that there is very little matter comparatively. So where is the matter being created? Since the matter must have been produced, since the matter is here. The matter must be created OR MORE LIKELY CONVERTED.

Since we know that all protons in the galaxy are connected directly or indirectly. And since we no longer believe in these idiotic behaviors ( like the belief in the photon and the big bang force us to believe.) …. It then becomes clear that things do not get created ex-nihilo and fuck right off for no reason at all. Rather we find, the virtually inescapable fact, that matter IS ITS OWN CONVERTER. That matter IS CREATED ON-LOCATION as-it-were. Why would something newly created fuck off at the speed of light for no reason at all?

Well it doesn’t. Matter is created (or more correctly I would say CONVERTED) where it already is. At the centre of moons, planets, stars, and most particularly at the large dark bodies at the centre of galaxies. You see while every proton in a galaxy is connected to every other, as the propagation speed of gravity proves absolutely …….

….. While each proton is connected to every other there has to be a lot of “STUFF” out there that is not connected in the same way. Which does not exert gravitational force. Which barely interacts with the universe. So matter converts STUFF (I use the term advisedly) to more matter. It does so ON-LOCATION where the other matter already is.

This all seems totally unbelievable to a banger or to the normal propagandized public. But once you finally get the idiocy of the photon and the idiocy of the Big Bang out of your system it all becomes actually very obvious. Further it implies a catastrophic galaxy. It implies periodic catastrophes for us on this earth. I won’t go into the reasons for that. But it would be a good thing if we had some sort of signal that could outrun light. Because we need advanced warning as to when a catastrophic pulse is coming our way.

I don’t expect anything worthwhile coming out of this latest young-earth-creationist theorising. But believe me. PZ Myers is in no position to be looking down at that fellow. PZ MYERS is like a virgin who has learned to talk dirty. PZ Myers knows what the scientific method is all about. I’ve heard him make an excellent speech on the nature and importance of the scientific method. He’s not jumping into bed with the scientific method anytime soon. He’s never going to actually apply it. He talks up a storm. But he cannot walk out there where the real wind blows. It is beyond his capacity to be an authentic scientist.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Joe Cambria really is jealous of you and all your female admirers, isn’t he Graeme lol. He never stops pestering you. What a loser.

    Sorry, JC, uneducated, snotty-nosed, stinky breathed stupid deadbeat males are definitely not Birdy’s thang.

    Mark my word, old man.

  2. Graeme I did a long bike ride today, the climb didn’t seem so steep as it went by, but in the end we’d climbed quite high, thousands of feet.

    When we arrived at our destination we were treated like royalty. Towels were brought and we threw our soaked riding clothes into a dryer. Then the hosts brought out a five-course meal – wild mushroom soup, huge ravioli stuffed with meat and potatoes, polenta with eggplant and cheese, followed by meatloaf, with more mushrooms and an egg, cabbage and nutmeg tart. There was red wine, too. Topped by a fabulous chocolate and meringue desert. I have probably never eaten so much, but the hard ride had burned a lot of calories.

    Meanwhile, as we ready to return to our base the rain started up again, so mine host decided we couldn’t leave without a shot of espresso and a glass of grappa, to warm us for the ride back home.

    Later the sun came out and dried the road and the riders, and we pedaled home tired but happy.

    • Sounds great. I went and bought a skipping-rope at Big C, since right now its very hard to plan anything. The amount of people we are visiting and so forth. These Thai houses are usually pretty big and you can usually find a good place to skip, even with just a half hour here or there.

      The difficulty in finding time for the internet makes it sometimes hard to get to the computer and censor others (and myself) quickly enough. Still amazes me that Fisk (of all people) would want to keep taking shots at you after so long. Its a bit disturbing whereas the others are just a lost cause. Tribal. White house-niggers and so forth.

      But all that talk of food makes me think of linking this fellow Gerald Celente. Just to show that Cambria is not a taint on all Italians. In fact I suspect your hosts were Italian right?

      So see this Celente fellow. I discovered him not long ago, saying a lot of the same things as me. He’s a trend forecaster. But one thing very interesting in this video is it reveals one of the people who edits his quarterly journal is none other than John Anthony West. West was one of two people who discovered and proved that the Sphinx was far older than Kemi Egypt. He sussed it out that the Pharaoh’s could not have built the Sphinx. That the Sphinx was far older. That it was probably older then 10 000 years old. The implication of course is that the pyramids also could be older, like the Sphinx definitely is. And as we have found, evidence for the Kemi building the pyramids turns out to be rather thin, when you actually go looking for it.

      So you see West was one of the two guys that proved this fact about the Sphinx. Thereby raising questions about the pyramids. And here he is to my surprise, showing up on the Celente team. Which just goes to show that if you want to run a class act its better to surround yourself with good people. And not worry too much about these tribal Catallazian types and other riff-raff. Currency-Lad, Rafe, Kates and Fisk ought to probably move on before they become too terribly tainted by these tribal types.

  3. It’s nice even a low-rent enemy such as JC appears to care so much about Graeme that he fears his friends may disappoint. All unwarranted, natch, Graeme is a glass half full kind of guy and attracts first class well everything and everyone.

    Joe Cambria OTOH as his wife continually if a little redundantly tells us here on this blog, is a breathless sick old jealous fool, madly envious of Graeme Bird.

    Can’t help you JC, sorry. Try palliative care, there’s a good chap.

  4. NOT EVEN YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TELL LIES ON THIS SITE FISK.

  5. Hey Graeme

    do you agree with Rafe?

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/07/17/the-remarkable-career-of-peter-coleman/#comment-388129

    Rafe said:

    Chapter and verse required DD. I have read the early issues of Quadrant and cannot recall any McCarthyism, not do I find McCarthyism in any of Coleman’s work that I have read. McCarthism was a conservative “own goal” that did more to help the left than any efforts of their own.

    • No Rafe is totally wrong and ahistorical here. This failed analysis comes where the historian is too lazy to judge things over again, when he has lived through the events. Like for example, Geoffrey Blainey is a top-flight historian. His small book where he made a research paper on this history of war is brilliant. But his twentieth century book is less good. Also Paul Johnson’s book: “The Birth Of The Modern” is a lot more accurate, original and brilliant, then his stuff on the twentieth century……. (as good a read as all his stuff is.) Since where Paul is talking about those events he’s actually lived through, he’s cutting corners.

      This isn’t a matter of opinion. Rafe is totally wrong and proven wrong about this. He was proven totally wrong when the Soviet archives were briefly opened up, and also when the secret operation, where the FBI, unknown even to Presidents, was intercepting Russian sourced telegraphs …… well all this came to light. Now people who lived through that time knew that McCarthy was doing a great job, until right near the end, when he was worn down and drinking way too much. The press here in Australia was with him right until near the end when he was clearly exhausted and sick. But it was critical that his legacy be destroyed. So over time the herd was brainwashed to thinking otherwise.

      All of the above is proven factual history. Its not even open to anyone contradicting matters. McCarthy saved America from a more total Soviet control. He got rid of dozens of spies and communists from sensitive positions. And this was no small problem. Its always sickening to discuss these things with you Jason, because of your now proven sniggering attitude to genocide. (Here I’m using “genocide” in the colloquial sense of murdering in the millions and tens of millions.) Having the communists in the US government meant spreading communism to China.

      It meant all those deaths in the Korean war when Truman was guided into preventing the US from winning quickly and freeing the North Koreans …. which was in military terms a walk in the park. Actually even taking matters from after the establishment of communist China and North Korea, the spies in the US were instrumental in allowing that war, since Truman was convinced that he should not give the South Korean ally heavy artillery. Almost unbelievably Truman at first was convinced to fight only on the turf of his ally, and he put Americans in the front lines!!!! He then was somehow convinced to continue with the unbelievable policy of having the US navy separate the Chinese and Taiwanese navy’s. This was total madness and amounted to the butchery of thousands of his own soldiers. Then when Douglas attempted to explain what these nutters were doing, Truman fired him.

      Now consider this last point. The cliche that was laid down as an excuse for this bizarre, treasonous war policy, as conducted by the communist-surrounded Marshall and Truman was that the Americans were fighting the Korean war to PREVENT AND NOT WAGE WORLD WAR III. That was the excuse for this insanity. Which combined with more war-criminal bombing (a lot of the bombing was probably not in that category this time around. But I think some of it surely was just from the casualty figures) killed and injured tens of thousands of Americans, and maybe at least 2 million others. Of course many millions more have been murdered in North Korea and China since.

      So its not a small thing, this need to stop Washington being so skillfully influenced via Moscow. The Moscow influence continued of course. But in a far less powerful way then it would have but for McCarthy. Now here is the thing. Paul Johnson is a good historian. He’s also a conservative. But he screwed up and went along with the cliche of Truman’s. He went along with this idiotic idea that Macarthur deserved to be sacked rather than listened too. So you see this is what happens when people are dealing with history they actually lived through. They often get lazy with it and cock it up entirely. Rafe is a strong thinker and sound fellow like Paul Johnson. But he’s gone and cocked this one up good and proper. I’m not wrong about this, Rafe is, and if it were even WORTH bothering to prove such an obvious fact, it would be quite easy to do so.

      The problem is we here in the West tend to think of Sun Tzu as simply more oriental hocus pocus. But Moscow had mastered this sort of philosophy. And they were able to skew policy in Washington powerfully by the use of these Tzuzian tools.

  6. Got to go. The above has to be considered as a first draft. It doesn’t scan real well. But I’ve got to run. I’ll have to put a couple of caveats in later. Since I’ve made the accusation and assumption of war criminal bombing. Which I would have to prove and I could be wrong.

  7. He’s a real Jew Bastard that one isn’t he.

  8. Sounds like you’re having a fab holiday Graeme. Great stuff.

    Yes mine hosts are Italian. Staying tonight at a winery that had once been a religious community. The winery also serves today as a hotel. The food again is excellent and we ate a lot of it. We also drank the local wines, all made by the women who run the place. In fact, the owner is one of the country’s most prominent wine producers.

    This morning we took off again and cycled about 80 kms to a town where we stopped at a local deli that specialises in products made from local olive plantations and dairy farms. I bought soaps, dressings, cheese and some dried mushrooms from last year’s bumper crop. All the gastronomic loot including two bottles of the local red vino made it home safely, thankfully.

    It’s such a pleasure to eat heartily and not worry because you’re expending so much energy on the day’s cycling, especially on the tough, hard climbs.

    • Great post. You remind me of all these gorgeous Thai women I’m meeting.

      I would not be a good dictator perhaps?. After a dozen years I would get corrupted and perhaps seek to make you all my “minor wives”.

      So just remember. If Graeme Bird ever gets to high office, he has to be knee-capped after clearing the stables six years on. Because he has a weakness for the corn and the women.

  9. “Its always sickening to discuss these things with you Jason, because of your now proven sniggering attitude to genocide. (Here I’m using “genocide” in the colloquial sense of murdering in the millions and tens of millions.) ”

    Graeme, apart from being holding such noxious views, from what I can work out Jason Soon got his arse handed to him years ago and was outclassed by the LP and Club Troppo crowd, which is why he set up Catalazy.

    Does he still post there? Last time I looked it was run by Sinclair Davidson and Joe Cambria. Soon couldn’t even keep up with them. Low energy, not very bright boy it would appear.

  10. Graeme, re Senator Joseph McCarthy. He was an odd fish wasn’t he? His initial allegations of communist agents in the US government were made in an address to the Women’s Republican Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. Isn’t that more than a little strange?

    And this of course sparked what we now in hindsight fairly call a “moral panic”, never a good thing, lots of irrational, atavistic emotionality going on there, always.

    And his specific allegations led to 151 actors, writers, musicians, radio and TV entertainers being accused of communist affiliations, with all the dreadfully unfair and destructive consequences these allegations had on their lives and that of their families.

    And who were these accused? The names included people such as Leonard Bernstein, Lee J. Cobb, Aaron Copland, Jose Ferrer, Lillian Hellman, Langston Hughes, Burl Ives, Gypsy Rose Lee, Arthur Miller, Zero Mostel, Dorothy Parker, Artie Shaw, Irwin Shaw, William Shirer, Sam Wanamaker and Orson Welles.

    I mean, really. Individuals who were among the crème de la crème of American cultural life at that time.

    This was disgraceful and ridiculous. How can you possibly retrospectively defend the ideological persecution of these individual artists by the State?

    • Well he was taking on the establishment. And this establishment were in fact war criminals. They had partly (I would say MOSTLY) been induced to commit war crimes because of the zeitgeist that the communist “spies” (ie agents of influence)had created.

      Now these agents of influence were not restricted to the Soviets by any means. The British had them too. The British agents were probably far more responsible for bringing the Americans into the war. Now see how it is embarrassing to mention Soviet agents of influence …. without also mentioning (in a prosaic way) the English agents also?

      THAT!!!!!! is ZEITGEIST. Thats what ZEITGEIST is(!!!!!).

      What is fashionable?

      What is embarrassing?

      What is socially acceptable?

      What makes people sneer at you?

      What makes people angry at you?

      This ought to be about REASON. But its not. Its about ZEITGEIST. And if a foreign power is doing its job it is ZEITGEIST that they control. Sun Tzu’s shadow looms above us all.

      McCarthy took them all on. Just him and his office and a full-proof information system. He is the greatest whistle-blower in all of history. And the twentieth century cannot be understood until his story is understood. Maybe someone who wasn’t a bit of a dipso could never have taken the job on, AND TAKEN THE FALL, ALL WITHOUT GIVING UP HIS INFORMATION SOURCE.

      This is a great hero. And we can never be free while his very name is a pariah, and a statue of that vile fuck Roosevelt sits in any capital city on the globe.

    • You see those names you listed? McCarthy never named one of them as far as I know. Burl Ives is probably one of the most talented entertainers of the twentieth century. But he wasn’t in a sensitive job. So McCarthy wasn’t the least bit interested in him. And I’m a righty right? But I still love that Big Rock Candy Mountain song.

  11. WHY AREN’T YOU OVER AT CATALLAXY GENTLY REMINDING RAFE THAT HIS ARGUMENT IS UNTENABLE?

    SEE YOU ARE WRONG. I GET EXCITED AND DO MORE SKIPPING, AND SWEAT LIKE A PIG MORE, IF I DRINK A BOTTLE OF BREW. YOU CANNOT FUEL SKIPPING WITH WINE THOUGH!!! THATS A FACT.

    WINE AND SKIPPING PRODUCES HEADACHES. BUT BIKE-RIDING, WITH A MODERN BIKE, IS QUITE EASILY APPLICABLE. WINE-DRINKING CAN FUEL HAPPY RIDING OF A MODERN BIKE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. THIS IS JUST A FACT MICHAEL.

    HER STORY IS SOUND. YOU AREN’T DOING YOUR DUTY. AND EVEN IF YOU HAD REALISTIC DOUBTS, WHICH YOU DON’T, YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOU ARE WELCOME HERE BUT THERE IS TWO THINGS YOU DON’T DO. THATS (1) TELL LIES AND (2) BE NASTY TO PHILOMENA.

    LAST TIME YOU DID A NUMBER ONE. THIS TIME YOU DID A NUMBER TWO.

    I APPRECIATE YOUR BRAINPOWER, AND WANT YOU TO KEEP COMING HERE. BUT YOU MUST KNOW THAT YOUR DUTY IS TO GENTLY NUDGE RAFE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. NOT TO GRATUITOUSLY SLAP PHILOMENA IN THE FACE LIKE YOU WERE SOME LITTLE BITCH.

    SERIOUSLY MIKE. GET IT TOGETHER MAN. I AM BECOMING MORE IMMUNE TO THE ZEITGEIST SLOWLY. YOU ARE LETTING IT CONTROL YOU. AND THATS ONLY FUCKING CATALLAXY ZEITGEIST?????

  12. BTW – Catallaxy was around long before LP, and around the same time as Club Troppo.

  13. SEE WHAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MIKE? INSTEAD OF NUDGING A SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL, the (THE!!!!!!) LEADING POPPER-SCHOLAR, AN AUTHENTIC HISTORIAN, AN HONEST MAN, AND A STEADY PERSISTENT THINKER IN THE TRADITION OF HUTT……….

    ……. INSTEAD OF NUDGING RAFE, SOMETHING OF A NATIONAL TREASURE, IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ………..

    INSTEAD OF ALL THAT; YOU CHOOSE ….

    …… YOU CHOOSE INSTEAD TO LEAD A PRIMITIVE STUPID WOP ASTRAY.

    NOW FOCUS YOUR EFFORTS MORE SOUNDLY. I ADMIRE YOUR BRAINPOWER, BUT FIND YOUR BEHAVIOR, TOTALLY INEXPLICABLE.

    AN IN CONTEXT, A LITTLE BIT FEEBLE ……. IF I MAY BE SO BOLD.

  14. “HER STORY IS SOUND.”

    No. You cannot cycle 80kms with luggage after downing 15 standard drinks at altitude.

    YOU FUCKING MORON. IT WAS LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO THAT I INTENTIONALLY GOT LOST(TO SOME EXTENT) ON A FUCKING GRANNY-BIKE, IN CHIANG MAI (IE AT ALTITUDE) FUCKING DRESSED AS AN ARAB TERRORIST, AND WAS GONE FOR FOUR HOURS, CYCLING FOR THREE AND A HALF, AND ONLY STOPPING, FOR THE MOST PART, TO ASK DIRECTIONS, AND DRINK CHANG BEER.

    DON’T FUCKING MAKE THINGS UP MARK.

    PHILOMENA’S STORY IS ABSOLUTELY SOUND, SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DOUBTED, BUT HAD SHE SAID SHE SKIPPED THAT MUCH ON WINE, RATHER THAN BEER, THEN THE HEADACHE QUESTION WOULD HAVE ARISEN.

    HERE IS ANOTHER TIME WHEN A FELLOW ECONOMIST (JASON SOON) COULD STEP IN AND CORRECT YOU (IE MARK HILL) BUT WILL NOT DO SO.

  15. Goodness gracious me. I’ve just been over to Catallaxy and seen the myth-building and fantasy element of their continued abuse of Philomena.

    Did I create this monster? …… early on?

    Makes me go easy on myself for those two posts that I took off air.

    This is the story:

    Only a small proportion of sheilas, over 35, can look absolutely fantastic all the time. Most of those, if they are not Thai, are married to multi-millionaires, or on a modeling gig.

    Out of the remainder, Philomena has far more capacity, then 99% (of the remainder) to show up in make-you-drool status.

    Now I KNOW-this. Doesn’t mean I’ve done anything wrong. Or broken any contract. But I know this.

    And you guys at Catallaxy do not know this.

    And you ought to bow to superior knowledge, but you don’t, so thats why all but half a dozen of you are complete fuckwits, and half of the remainder are still nasty to Philomena.

    And you are just showing yourselves up to be un-ladies-men…… To coin a phrase.

    Which tells me that if you aren’t outright evil, then you lack strategic vision.

    “lack strategic vision”

    Sometimes I use understatement for effect.

  16. I just checked out the Rafe reference.

    SOON is an agent of influence.

    Fuck him. Send him home. Get him out of here, and let me forget I went drinking with him. Let me forget he plays a pretty good harmonica and at least pretends to like Johnny Cash.

    He’s a fucking “plant”

    Get him out of here.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I dig Springsteen. But there is a lot of talk about him representing the working man. Well what the fuck did CASH do for so many more decades?

  17. “SOON is an agent of influence.”

    Mr Bird,

    I am indeed pleased that you have finally seen the light. The fact that Australia’s leading “libertarian” blog could be set up honestly by a oriental confucianist is beyond belief. The man is clearly a Beijing agent, bent on leading well meaning libertarians into crony- and ultimately chinese style state capitalism.

    In Sinclair Davidson he has found a willing ally.

    • Its at least possible. He has to be considered a suspect. But the key to how I think the Sun Tzu techniques would operate in practice, is that you simply wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between an agent and a snide practitoner of smug-buggery, unless you had the entire banking and spending records of these people and all those whom they deal with.

      Two massages a week for a Chinaman, living in Australia, is pretty fucking extravagant, when you consider what a tight-arse mother-fucker your average Chinaman is.

      The observation when applied to Chinese people, who are taxPAYERS …….. I mean that in a good way though. Being a tight-ass Chinaman is wealth creation up until that point where his networks wealth gets so big it brings political snap with it. Up to a point making money through business, when you are starting as poor Chinese refugees. This is wealth creation.

  18. what do you think Graeme? maybe you should offer to run for them

    http://www.dlp.org.au/index.php?page=distributism

    • Yeah they are close enough to my way of thinking I suppose. Whereas I would just lock in a tiny, but hopefully devastating-in-the-long-run, advantage to smaller business, these guys might go right in there and break up the big guys. So I suppose you could call my way, a more patient way, of getting to a similar outcome. But where the banks are concerned I would have no compunction about going in and splitting them up. I’d rather see them all broke first, as GOD had clearly wanted them to be, in 2008. But I’ve lost any scruples for splitting up banks. Matters have gotten too serious to pussy-foot around.

      Also its more than likely that the fractional reserve spigot has consolidated these larger outfits. Fractional reservists like sure things. So they naturally would lend to land asset inflation, governments …. but also to potential natural monopolists. Or rather they may create an unnatural amount of market power, when they see the chance for it. Since this has been going on in the modern era pretty much from the American civil war, it ought to be clear that the average size of corporations is likely a lot larger than what the market would will it. I don’t like anti-trust, or grabbing things and breaking them up. But thats a minor disagreement I could work with in that party. So I don’t think my aims are incompatible with theirs. Like they would be in a party that was after a carbon tax for instance. Which is just the end of the fucking world. So yes I may talk to these guys.

      The other thing is I really really dig GK Chesterton. This is probably part of where I get my bias in favor of people who have converted to Catholicism. From him, and Paul Johnson, and from their general intellectual background. Especially Aquinas. And I noticed that these guys you linked mention just war theory. Which is also a big plus. So it might be a much closer match for me than the LDP, with a few caveats. So I’ll talk to them in a few weeks sure.

      • Regarding the DLP.

        “It was reported in June 2010 that the party is on the brink of collapse, with rampant party infighting and less than $10,000 in the bank. Police are also investigating the disappearance of potentially tens of thousands of dollars, attributed to the Victorian DLP’s former secretary, John Mulholland, who has lost cases before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Australian Electoral Commission and Victorian Supreme Court over his claims that he is still “party secretary”, despite expulsion from the party in January 2010. Kavanagh and other DLP officials have stated that Mulholland engaged in “poor receipt keeping” during his period as secretary, over the last twenty-five years.”

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

        http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-dlp-on-brink-of-collapse-20100619-yo28.html

        This sounds perfect for you Bird, you could surely solve the party infighting with your calm demeanor and ability to defuse conflicts, inspire teamwork etc.

      • Sure its perfect. The ideas are so threatening to the real bigshots they have to deal with it. It ought to be very clear that only these sorts of ideas can bring down the world of unearned wealth without massive bloodshed. So of course they are going to have a lot of bad luck coming their way.

      • Regarding the DLP:

        “So I’ll talk to them in a few weeks sure.”

        Did you contact them at all, if so you’re leaving your election run a bit late.

      • I’m not running myself this time around. I’ve got to get out of debt. It may cost less than a 1000 dollars to make a token run. But thats a 1000 dollars too much for me right now.

  19. Agent Soon,

    Your sneering oriental ways are not welcome here. Mr Bird knows full well you are an agent of influence, who plied him with drink and music to try and break his resistance. We can all be gratetful that Mr Bird is made of much sterner stuff than your typical victims.

    What these well meaning but stupid DLP “thinkers” fail to realise is that under 100% backing there would be no need for distributionist interference. They advocate numerous interventions into the economic order to achieve their end, when with this one control, we could eliminate the ponzi money and all the castles of sand which teeter upon it.

    With this and a few other modest policy changes such as removal of height restrictions, growth deflation and the much wider distribution of property and wealth would follow.

    • “What these well meaning but stupid DLP “thinkers” fail to realise is that under 100% backing there would be no need for distributionist interference.”

      Let me just amend that. Had there NEVER EVER been fractional reserve, and had their never been the fixed costs of gaining political influence for business, the fixed costs of dealing with regulation and the tax department, the ability of multi-nationals to get all these tax breaks that the little guy doesn’t get……

      …. then yes I think distributionism would indeed been unnecessary. But the above advantages for bigshots is a long-standing fact of history. Going at least back to the American Civil War era.

      I suppose I’ve always thought that a tiny bias in this direction was absolutely necessary to counteract the myriad biases that are in favor of bigshots AND THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN FAVOR OF BIGSHOTS FOR SO LONG.

      So I thought of it as this slight corrective necessary, and for us to of course always be looking after our mates in transition.

      But you have economics, and you have politics. And you have this political influence of corporations, not how it ought to be under capitalism, but how its been for decades now. So for these reasons, I would support that party or at least this seems to be the case. The just war business is a real clincher. So I’d sit on the libertarian wing of that party with great ease and comfort.

      But if they adopted a carbon tax, that would be it. I’d resign from that party even if I were already an MP. Because thats a strategic loss to everything wicked and injurious of life on earth. So I will be checking them out over time.

  20. Sorry Bird, I’ll just have to disagree. I have quite a lot of experience with cycling and I cannot in good conscience accept Phil’s story about riding a Tour De France leg with a hangover, a booze top-up, and a shopping basket. Ever ridden home from Coles with a backpack full of gear or bags hanging off your handlebars? Now imagine doing that half-pissed from Sydney to Newcastle. That’s my position. I’ll cut the tranny accusations (at least around here) at your request because they are juvenile, admittedly. But I reserve the right to call Phil on her yarn-spinning.

    • Well thats one good thing I suppose. That you might stay away from attacking her femininity which no girl over 35 ought to have to put up with. You remember how people were just these tremendous cads when it came to Thatcher? Who had way more than the normal fair share of womanly charms, but was still vulnerable to that sort of attack, as all women of a certain age are.

      But you aren’t making a serious argument about the bike either. Because I’m not in great shape right now. But to me its all about heart-rate. So if I don’t let my heart-rate go above 130 I can keep exercising for hours (supposing I start fresh) and drink beer doing it no worries.

      Now if I go at that heart-rate (ie just under 130) for three hours, I may take about two or three days to recover because I’m not that fit.

      Now take the alternative situation. I don’t let my heart-rate get over 120. That being the case, I’m going to recover the next day, pretty much regardless, of the duration of the activity.

      So like i said I’m not that fit. Keeping my heart-rate under 120 right now, would imply jogging, then walking, then jogging then walking. It would be a jog-walk operation right now with me not that fit and having to support my 102 kilos. On a bike I’d have to go at a moderate pace and really drag-ass on the hills.

      But when I was fit I would sustain a good pace in just about all the activities so far mentioned, and still be able to keep the low heart-rate.

      So I just don’t know where this is coming from? Many people cannot swim on a full stomach. I have no such problems, because I was a swimmer. And because to do a seven kilometre session, I’d actually want to kick it off on a full stomach. Doing more distance and “slow-interval” sets …. more kicking and pulling sets, before the harder gear later on, when the food was fully digested.

      So I’ve got no reason to doubt her story even a little bit. Because this is not jogging with this up and down pounding. I just don’t see what is being said here? I’ve met a guy two years younger than me, he rides 50 km a day starting at about 4.00pm. This is at altitude. He says he knows a Thai fellow thirty years our senior, faster than him, and rides 200km a day.

      Look Philomena is a fit girl a lot of the time. You guys have built up this ridiculous fantasy image of this lady. But she’s an outdoors, open spaces chick, who likes to go walking and riding her bike. I just don’t get it? If you stay within the heart-rate zone appropriate for you, you keep going. If you go higher than that, you may keep going but not recover fully for two days. And if you go higher still, thats unsustainable.

      You are a part-time body-builder. I was a swimming competitor at age group level and then a coach in my mid-twenties. Actually I had to school up on all this exercise physiology even as a kid. Since I was my own coach mostly. I know more about this sort of thing then you. When I did stress sessions I’d be pulling a nine kilometre session, broken up into all sorts of sets. Then I was back down to six kilometres twice a day right after that. Getting close to taper I’d be down to about 4 km twice daily, but because I’d only train in the summer my taper would be less than the others. About a week. And I wouldn’t be much above two km twice a day for that week.

      So my experience of exercise is that once you are fit, you can keep going, supposing you are in your right zone.

      You guys know nothing about this girl. If one has the taste for women, BOTH sides of 35, she’s a leggy sexy thing. or at least can be most of the time.

  21. FRACTIONAL RESERVE AND LARGE COMPANIES.

    Some companies might on the surface appear to be one sort of company, and be in reality another sort. At university, a marketing lecturer, told me why he thought there was still no MacDonalds in the South Island at that stage.

    Since then the South Island has been growing in population and in its relative real estate price position. But this had not been the case up until that date. It had been places like Auckland and Hamilton that had grown, at the expense of a lot of South Island towns.

    You see whilst it appeared on the surface that McDonalds was a food company, its directors treated it as a real estate investment empire. Hence its very likely under capitalism, where people could just start cheap street stalls, like in Thailand, and where restrictions to vertical development weren’t there. Where prices generally fell, so that few people held a great deal of wealth in land……

    ….. Well you see everything would be different. The fractional reserve spigot wouldn’t be there to expand outfits like McDonalds, if they were expanding on the basis of hoped-for land appreciation gains.

    A better example was given to me the other day. This fellow who had spent 20 years in South Africa, was talking about consolidated diamonds. So I brought up “De Beers” in the course of this conversation.

    Now in Milton Friedmands “Free To Choose” Milton had used De Beers as the closest thing that could be loosely described as a global monopoly. He said that these global monopolies were almost impossible without government action. He contrasted OPEC with DE BEERS. I agree that abnormal market power is not possible under capitalism (properly considered.)

    But what of the behavior of the fractional reserve thieving spigot? Yes thats important to market concentration in the case of De Beers also. Since whereas De Beers might seem to be a diamond monopoly, in reality, it too is a real estate outfit. As mining is in general, to some degree, and he told me why this was the case.

    When you find a seam of something, in this case diamonds, it takes up a lot of space horizontally. Here is all this space in woop woop. And the mining company needs to own all the real estate above in order to be able to utilise the seams below. To got through the current owner to get to the seams, would mean having to negotiate with the current owner, and always the owner with most of the negotiating chips. So the mining companies buy masses of land on the cheap, except where holdouts are wise to what is going on.

    Next the mining staff come into town, the roads must be built, and other businesses must serve the miners. So the bulk of what some (but not all) mining outfits are about is about the real estate, and the real estate appreciation. And one of those companies that operated like property developers, whilst looking like miners, were De Beers.

    So always we see this fractional reserve spigot distorting things and placing more resources than what is natural in a few hands.

    Now this may be more than a market distortion. It can get personal. It can be about the five sons of old man Rothschilds, buggering everything up for the rest of us, by setting up these huge subsidiary empires. I’m not able to verify all aspects of the history of this view of how the Rothschilds operated. But you see there is two things, There is the natural distorting nature of fractional reserve, and then there is the possible conspirational operation, wherein the fractional reservists “have their own maffia” (as someone recently put it to me.)

    You see once you get this consolidation, that fractional reserve inspires, if these guys get too powerful, and get their own maffia, its very easy to see how they could be working a shadow government. So all the conspiracy theories, are also sound under economic theory, if fractional reserve is tolerated.

    Another word for ones own maffia would be “a covert operations wing’. And it ought to be pretty obvious, that to conduct covert operations, you have to be able to move a lot of untraceable cash around the place. Its got to be unaudited and untraceable. This ought to be obvious……

    ….So from here its pretty natural for central banks and covert operations to get together. If in effect the central banks are virtually controlled by non-government outsiders of great wealth, (amassed by getting the jump on the fractional reserve racket)

    … If all that comes together, then you have the ability, and possibility, that power could be, or may have become, as consolidated in a way that we haven’t seen since the Pharaohs.

    Now this paradigm is a possibility and must be taken seriously. Since no-one has found an explanation for me as to how it was, that these bastards managed to set up the controlled demolition of all three buildings on 9/11 which is a proven fact. A proven fact. Only an idiot would think otherwise when its a completely proven reality. Only an idiot, or someone who hasn’t done his due diligence with the evidence. Its all there. There can be no denying it. Denial is useless, and reflects poorly on the idiot denying the reality. The conspirators had no idea that youtube was going to emerge, such that the evidence against them, was amalgamated, all in one place.

    But still no-one has shown how they could do it and get away with it. And no-one has yet explained how it is possible that the Federal Reserve can escape audit. This ought to have been impossible by any normal governmental standards. There is no contradicting me on this point. The Federal Reserve remains unaudited. This is impossible under the conventional view of government. So the conventional view of government must be wrong. Alternative non-shadow-government-explanations, are most welcome. But you won’t have them. You’ll only play your usual smug-buggery. Your alternative explanations will be missing, in the morning, and as the sun goes down, for years to come.

    As well no-one has yet managed an alternative explanation for why the American Federal Government gold-reserve escapes audit. Nor has anyone explained clearly how Paulson got away with the broad daylight theft of trillions of dollars. All of these realities are inexplicable in the face of the standard view of contemporary reality.

    The idea of the coming together of money-creation, covert ops, a large degree of media control, and all this in the hands of a few tiny networks, would seem to be the only explanation for the above. Let me know if you have any others.

    And since the above are proven facts (ie the controlled demolition of the three buildings, the thieving of Paulson, the Federal Reserve escaping audit, The American governments gold hoard also escaping audit) we have to consider that the conspiracy theorists are right in their main thrust. There is really no getting away from this. Its time we all took to the understanding of history, in a way quite different, from the understanding that passes for scholarship, in the mainstream quakademia.

    Try seeing it from my point of view. I’m a person who can look at this from both sides of the street. Being at one time contemptuous of conspiracy theory. But its gotten to the point that the non-conspirational view of reality is untenable. Those four examples being inexplicable under the conventional paradigm.

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

    But just HOW right are the conspiracy theorists? And what are all the implications?

    One implication is that I would sit nicely on the libertarian wing of that “distributionist” party. Because there is just no hope of anything approaching theoretical capitalism, given all I’ve pointed out above……. So then it makes sense to be on their right wing, rather than helping any of the co-opted libertarian outfits. Much as I like some of the older guys in the LDP, any party that has all these morons going after a carbon tax has clearly been co-opted. Since to co-opt you just need your act skewed in a totally fatal direction. You don’t need to take things over.

    Another implication is that the Rothschilds could have been largely responsible for the development of these huge businesses we saw in the so-called “Progressive”era, towards the end of the 19th Century. It could have been them picking winners, that caused this rather disturbing consolidation.

    How far is this fellow below really from the truth? Maybe he is being the better historian?

  22. Day Three. We began the real riding. We climbed for about 30 minutes, through olive groves and the occasional orchid. The sea air receded as we headed inland. From there it was a winding, 10km descent. Most of the other riders are from the American West, Colorado and California, and so have far more experience than the Australians with proper mountain descending. I tended to drift to the back, determined not to fall and ruin my holiday.

    One of the guides pulled up along side during one flat stretch and gave me a tutorial on going downhill. He taught me to stand on the outside pedal with all my weight, while pushing into the turn with my inside hand on the bars, a technique known as ‘counter-steerting.’ “Trust your tires,” he said. Easier said than done at high speed on an Italian mountain, but by the end of the trip I was descending much better and faster and was no longer dropped by the group. The total ride was about 95km.

    We ended the day with a visit to a nearby olive oil plantation, for tastings and a tour of the operation. Some of the trees there are believed to be 2,500 years old. Finally, dinner. Meals served family style at the hotel restaurant, cooked up by the owner’s family. Fare was hearty Tuscan – pastas, meats, salads.

  23. Graeme, I just saw your comments above to Michael Fisk. Please don’t see or act on the need to defend me. There is no need. You know what you know and that is enough for me. He and other Catalazians are only fishing and have malevolent intentions, towards you and me. Neither confirm nor deny nor explain anything about me, to them, is my advice, and preference.

    Re my athleticism. I don’t pretend to be an athlete. The very idea bores me. As I’ve told you before, I had the privilege of growing up being able to confidently swim and surf in the Pacific Ocean from a very early age. And to ride horses bareback. And cycle long distances to my heart’s content all day free of adult supervision or surveillance. And I was intensively trained for several years in my early teens by a former Olympian swimmer.

    However, I’ve always disliked and avoided from my mid-teens sports training, racing and competition. I’m tall and strongly built, I’ve never owned or driven a car and have got about mostly by walking and cycling, and public transport, and cabs, and being driven by others, lately also by motor cycle, which is such fun. I love long bush walks and cycling for pleasure. And I walk every day a lot, in the bush, or parks. My favourite form of exercise. And I think it is the best exercise of all – for everyone.

    • But I just get sick of it Philomena! Its not the ludicrous fantasies, the lies and the idiocy. Its the repetition of it and the continuance of the fatwah.

      Even the posts I wrote when drunk. I’d like to put them back up to try and counter the stupidity over at catallaxy. To try and overturn this mindblowingly stupid picture these people have maintained of you. I wasn’t even embarrassed about what I came up with. In fact I like reading them. I can read them right now.

  24. Graeme. It’s a game with them. Don’t take it at face value. I don’t. It’s a trick to get you to say stuff. As I said, best not to say anything, neither confirm nor deny anything about me in response to their provocations and adolescent silliness. I really would prefer that. I don’t ask much and I don’t ask often but I do ask this. I care not a whit for the views of those deadbeats. I feel sorry for them. There is no need to defend me. I don’t read what they say on other sites. What I am most interested in is conversing with and reading you.

    You are so well read. I love that. The 50s is a really interesting period. I want to talk about that more. Later.

  25. Yeah see you later. And keep having a great time. That last post about your big tour was really cool too. I couldn’t join such a tour right now. I’d expect that I’d get lost on account of getting too far behind. But thats all changing. I got a lot of sort of latent “inner fitness” that means I can get back into shape faster than most people, having put in the hard yards before.

    I also see now that we as coaches were doing a lot of things wrong in the swimming arena. And I think I’m going to be able to take advantage of capitalizing on the wrongness that the others are still into in their preparations.

  26. Birdy mused, “I got a lot of sort of latent “inner fitness”.”

    Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say you got a lot of outer fatness?

  27. “Of course gravity is near instantaneous. Were gravity to be the result of disconnected particle movement, it has been worked out, that gravity would have to move at 20 billion times the speed of light at least, to keep the galaxy from flying apart.”

    Is that so? Could you please give a source for that? Because as far as i know, all observations point to the existence of Einsteinian gravitational waves and the last guys postulating a infinite or extremely high gravitational speed have been dead for almost 200 years….

    • What reference do you need? Surely if you have a brain, you can see that if there is a delay in the force of gravity, all orbits would unwind, and obviously so. Just think about it for a moment. Get yourself a ball and string and swing it around. Now if the string is in contact all the time with the ball there is an instantaneous force. But if in your minds eye you could imagine the force was delayed so it pulled back in the wrong direction, then clearly the orbit would have to quickly get larger and unravel.

      Consider the eight minute delay between earth and sun, where light is concerned. Were there to be the same delay with gravity, our orbit would be unravelling to a very great degree every year. This is so obvious that it isn’t even worth passing off a reference for it.

      You must remember BG two salient points.

      1. Science is now the public service. And there is simply nothing the public service will not fuck up entirely.
      2. Modern physics and cosmology is such a fucking scandal they have to hold it together simply by engaging in the cult of personality. And the normal smugness and irrationality you get from Catallaxy, and other such numbskulls. Don’t ask me why these people are so stupid. It is for them to account for their idiocy and not for me. But needless to say as a human being and a taxpayer I’m fucking scandalised and blue-in-the-face with anger about it. Imagine basing science, not on reason and convergent evidence, but rather on personality cults and the outcomes of conferences!!!!?????

      But thats the public service for you.

  28. I’m afraid you completely misrepresent the effect of the speed of gravity.

    The sun distorts the space around itself and this is basically gravity. The earth moves in this distorted space and thus follows an orbit around the sun. The speed of gravity would only come into play as the sun changes its mass or is accelerated. Now assume that the sun would suddenly lose half its mass or is suddenly shifted to a different position. Only then it would take the 8 minutes for earth to catch up on the updated gravity field.

    Take your string and ball example, because the effect is analogous. You take an extremely long rubberband (for arguments sake let it be 50 feet) and tie a ball to one end and the other end to a pole. Now you send the ball flying in a circle and it flies merrily on its ‘orbit’. At the bas of the pole you now quickly yank on the rubber band and shorten it by a foot. It will take some short time for the pull to reach the ball and change its orbit. The force is not instantaneous. How quickly this travels will of course depend on the stiffness of your rubber string.

    This would of course also work with a steel rod instead of a rubber band only the effect would travel a lot quicker.

    The same goes for many effects. Imagine a ball balanced on an airstream. You cut off the airflow, the ball does not immediately drop. Or, if you want a wave-type example. Imagine a charged sphere held in the air by an oppositely charged ring on the ground. Take away the charge from the ground based ring, the ball won’t start falling until the changes are propagated to the ball (with the speed of light).

    The point is, the earth does always get an eight minute delay in gravity. However, as the gravity eight minutes ago was the same as the gravity now, nobody cares.

    Cheers,
    BG

  29. No you are a moron mate. A complete tool.

    Restating wrong and stupid theories does not prove wrong and stupid theories right.

    Get your act together or fuck off. You are irrational.

  30. Anybody who believes the theory of special relativity is an idiot. And we see it time and again. When this fucking moron thought he had made an argument by restating a theory I was disputing.

    What a fucking dumb cunt. Its a tough one to sort out who are the most moronic and irrational nutjobs out of the relativists and the big bangers. This is only made easier by the fact that these committed irrationalists are basically both the same crowd.

    What a complete fuckwit. He has no evidence even for his first two sentences.

  31. “The sun distorts the space around itself and this is basically gravity. ”

    Look at this fucking moron.

    1. I already knew the theory. So what was the point of restating it? What a dumb cunt.

    2. The statement is wrong.

    3. There is no evidence for this statement.

    4. The statement contradicts the basic nature of reality. Since space having no shape, its shape cannot be changed. You cannot compress, stretch or warp anything without shape. Only objects can be stretched, compressed or warped.

    5. Even if space could be distored in this fantasy, it would in no way create the movement shown.

    6. Its double dipping. We know gravity is a FORCE. Not a distortion of space. And this idiot is such a stupid cunt, he couldn’t figure that out even though he is right now feeling the force between his ass and his chair, without any space between them to distort.

    Public sector science is just a scandal of brazen irrationality. I don’t think one person in a thousand knows what a disgraceful racket socialist science is. How committed to irrationality these guys are. And most of all their hatred of the scientific method. Thats what really burns me up. These complete cunts just hate the scientific method. Nothing they hate more than the scientific method.

  32. Oh my god…

    I do not even know where to begin but i think i’ll leave it at the fact that special relativity has nothing to do at all with gravity and that your GPS device relies on calculations taking into account distortion of space….

    ad 3 Distortion of light and electromagnetic waves by gravity wells, perihelion advance of mercury, changes of rotation speed of double-star systems are all indications for distortion of spacetime.

    ad 4 & 5 i am sorry for your lack of imagination and science education

    ad 5 & 6 World lines cause exactly this effect. The force appears through a transformation of coordinates not unlike other fictious forces

    But i doubt you have any interest in learning or having civilized discussions. Next you’ll tell me that the speed of light is reference dependent and there is no such thing as time dilatation and length contraction.

    • I’ll tell you where to begin you fucking moron. Begin with logic and the scientific method. Don’t begin by being an idiot and simply restating your stupid theory. I already understand the theory and its idiotic.

      Obviously its not possible to change the shape of something that has no shape. Capiche? If you put reason ahead of the tribe this is a fact that you cannot fail to admit.

      So if you merely restate this error, this idiocy, without some sort of proof, your comment will be wiped for lying. We don’t tolerate lying on this site.
      So focus on this single lie alone. Which incidentally I’ve disproved by pointing out that there is no space between your ass and your chair to distort. And yet you feel a force. You have bathroom scales no? So stop being an idiot.

      Don’t restate your idiots theory. Prove it. And while you are at it you might as well confess to being a taxeater.

  33. NO GOOD EDNEY. THE IMPLICATION OF YOUR LAST COMMENT IS THAT YOU HAVE TRIED REASON AND EVIDENCE TO NO AVAIL. WHEREAS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS THAT YOU REFUSED TO ADHERE TO THE SUPREMACY OF BLAZINGLY CLEAR LOGIC.

    ONCE THE TAXEATER ADMITS THAT HE IS BEYOND THE NEED TO GET HIS HANDS DIRTY WITH LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HE’S BASICALLY CONCEDED THAT HIS TRIBAL POSITION IS CRAP. WHICH IT CLEARLY IS.

    • You’ve not tried REASON Edney. People are not supposed to change their mind except with recourse to REASON AND EVIDENCE. When people have used reason and evidence they have had no trouble changing my mind at all. Your arguments back then were identical to this pillocks. I can go back to Prodeo and find this exact same stupidity. Where you think that to prove a theory is merely to restate it.

      So help him out if you want. Prove to me that you can change the shape of something THAT HAS NO SHAPE. Try that for starters. But only reason and evidence are allowed. No restatement of the theory, as a substitute for proving the theory, will be tolerated.

  34. Mr B

    Why do you bother? You aren’t going to convince this clown.

    He’s obviously some Hebrew on the Public Tit trying to justify his stealing.

    His time will come.

  35. “If you put reason ahead of the tribe this is a fact that you cannot fail to admit.”

    Exactly, Mr B.

    But these people never put anything ahead of the Tribe, do they?

  36. I would suggest that these goons woud get away with spelling anything anyway they want. After all if you think that something entirely without shape can be stretched, compressed or warped, you probably wouldn’t care which way around you were wearing your shoes, let alone show much concern for spelling niceties.

  37. You can stretch and distort things without shape …….

    STOP RIGHT THERE. UNTIL YOU CAN RESOLVE THIS BASIC LOGICAL CONTRADICTION THERE IS NO POINT GOING ANY FURTHER. TO STRETCH SOMETHING IS TO CHANGE ITS SHAPE. IF SOMETHING IS WITHOUT SHAPE, THEN ITS SHAPE CANNOT BE CHANGED.

    THE REST OF WHAT YOU WROTE IS THEREFORE PREMATURE. THE OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU SPEAK ABOUT REQUIRE OTHER EXPLANATIONS. LIGHT ALSO BENDS WHEN IT GOES THROUGH A GLASS PRISM. NO LOGICAL CONTRADICTION IS NEEDED TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING. LET ALONE THE BEHAVIOR OF LIGHT.

    TRY AGAIN. WHAT IS LIGHT? WHAT IS GRAVITY?

    BUT WHEN YOU TRY AND EXPLAIN THESE THINGS, LYING, AND LOGICAL CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED. NOT EVER.

    • WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU’VE DROPPED BY BEFORE. WHICH MEANS OF COURSE THAT YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS NO LYING ON THIS SITE. I ALWAYS RESPOND TO EVIDENCE AND/OR LOGIC. HENCE YOUR CLAIMS AND INSINUATIONS THAT I DO NOT ARE A LIE.

      • “… and after my arguments were completely ignored……”

        THERE IS NO LYING ALLOWED ON THIS SITE. YOU DIDN’T MAKE AN ARGUMENT. YOU SIMPLY RESTATED THE WRONG CLAIMS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. WHICH IS NO ARGUMENT AND WHICH WAS ITSELF A LIE. SINCE IT WAS A LIE TO IMPLY THAT I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THESE ERRONEOUS CLAIMS WERE.

      • No, thats just the leftist reversal. Both of you are lying anonymous cunts. And neither of you are interested in evidence or reason.

        You’ve made an whole series of ludicrous claims, totally unbacked, by evidence or reason. And you want turn the situation around as if it was me?

        The reversal?

        So thats all you’ve got?

        You see the two of you have claimed that something without shape can change its shape.

        This is drooling idiocy. This is a straight contradiction. I’ve already proved that this explanation, on top of being a contradiction of basic reality, does not explain gravity. Your ass exerts force against your chair. Did this escape your notice? You fucking morons?

        So I’ve proved your lie to be wrong in logic, and an insufficient explanation for gravity. Your claim has been beaten on all possible grounds. So what evidence have you offered to over-ride my evidence and my logic.

        Nothing.

        And its not okay. Its not okay to continue this public servants stonewall and parasites act. Because physicists are getting in the way of real progress, and wasting scarce resources every year, since they refuse point blank to adopt the scientific method.

    • “You can stretch and distort things without shape”

      No you cannot stretch or distort anything without shape you moron. Because to stretch, compress, or distort something, in this context, is quite clearly to fucking change its shape. So don’t be a fucking moron. You are not a child. And you are not above REASON AND LOGIC.

      So grow up. And stop being a parasite. This crap cosmology is typical public service work. And its not okay. Its a lot of evidence-free bullshit, papered over by the cult of personality. It stinks.

      Why not try science?

      Too hard for you hey?

  38. Those Goddamned Jew Bastards.

  39. Don’t betray humanity, by shifting the blame onto Jewish kids Tillman.

    The way these asshole elitists (money-creation/covert-ops nexus) act …… they may as well be AZTEC royalty, seeing themselves as superior people, for their exquisite taste in various human organ dishes. Its got nothing to do with Jews. In fact there are Jewish individuals, who are more important than almost anyone else, in shedding light, on the farming of humans.

  40. You are kind of funny…

    Are you really comparing prisms and bending of light by gravity wells?

    OH FOR FUCKSAKES. WHY WOULD I ENGAGE IN SUCH A PURE FANTASY AS A “GRAVITY WELL” YOU REALLY ARE AS THICK AS TWO PLANKS. A WELL IS A HOLE YOU DICK. FOR IT TO BE A HOLE IT HAS TO BE A HOLE IN SOMETHING. A HOLE IN SPACE? RIIIGGGGHHHHHHT. DUMMY! WHAT NEXT? YOU GOING TO BE SELLING DONUT HOLES, TEN BAHT EACH, AND BE EXPECTING THEY’LL FLY OFF THE EMPTY SHELF, OUT OF YOUR EMPTY POT, UNTIL THAT POT IS TOO FULL OF TEN BAHT COINS TO PRODUCE THE DONUT HOLES ANY MORE? YOU THINK THE DONUT HOLES WILL SELL LIKE ICED COFFEE OR SOMETHING?

    Light is an electromagnetical wave.

    RIGHT. THATS A START. I THINK THATS QUITE ENOUGH UNTIL YOU RESOLVE CERTAIN ISSUES.

  41. There is no such thing as a gravity well you fucking twit. So of course I’m not comparing them.

    Whereas the explanation for light bending, in one case is wrong and idiotic, the explanation in the second case is reasonable, and yet insufficient, since the public servants take a mystical view of light, and refuse point blank to find out what it is. Same with gravity. Its just licensed irrationality by bureaucrats. Everything rooted and irresponsible as usual, but in this particular case the same fuckups are hidden by this immense and constant praise and self-praise, stepping far over the borders of worship and narcissism.

    Whereas in reality your mainstream physicist and cosmologist has no fucking idea about science at all. An utter embarrassment.

  42. “Light is an electromagnetical wave……”

    Gather around you who are not physicists, and look at what an idiotic faith this religion of light-velocity-absolutism really is.

    We will test this moron out, and we can guarantee right now that he will fail this test.

    “Light is an electromagnetical wave………”

    Well thats an inadequate description isn’t it! Because always and everywhere, a wave is not what something IS! Its what a bunch of things DO!

    A wave is something, or rather somethings, in action. Undergoing wave motion.

    Okay your first sentence makes it over the net, only as shorthand. Explain what light IS in the context of what is known about wave motion. We see in a Mexican wave, for example, a lot people all taking certain actions, and this wave moves through the people. When you have a wave moving through water, it gets a bit clumsy talking of a wave as many many little objects doing something. So we talk about any wave in terms of its medium, and the nature of the “shock-wave” or some such other action, moving through this medium.

    So go ahead. And give us a more complete version of what light is. Not something that you can only get away with as shorthand.

  43. YOU USELESS CUNT. SO YOU’VE GOT NO ARGUMENT AT ALL? ALL YOU DID IS RESTATE THE WRONG AND IGNORANT THEORY OF RELATIVITY. I ALREADY KNEW IT. SO YOU DIDN’T MAKE AN ARGUMENT. NOW YOU ARE DOING A RUNNER. YOU ARE JUST SO FUCKING DUMB FELLA.

  44. NO USE BITCHING CHAMP. GET YOURSELF AN ARGUMENT OR SOME EVIDENCE. DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT ONE OR THE OTHER. THIS IS NOT THE PZ MYERS SCHOOL FOR IDIOCY. THIS IS NOT THE PUBLIC SERVICE.

    AN ARGUMENT, OR EVIDENCE IS NEEDED AT THIS LOCATION. AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT MAKE IT MACRO-EVIDENCE. THE POTENTIAL FOR CIRCULAR REASONING, WITH SUCH HYPOTHETICAL CREATURES AS “MUONS” OUGHT TO BE OBVIOUS.

    • MICHELSON-MORLEY WAS A REFUTATION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY, EVEN BEFORE SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS INVENTED. MICHELSON-MORLEY IS NOT CONSONANT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY AT ALL.

      • LOOK IF YOU HAD A CASE YOU’D COME UP WITH THE EVIDENCE. I JUST POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT THE IDEA THAT MICHELSON-MORLEY WAS EVIDENCE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS A MYTH. A MYTH I WAS TAUGHT AND BELIEVED.

        MICHELSON-MORLEY IS FAR MORE CONSONANT WITH (JUST FOR EXAMPLE) THE DOCTRINE OF THE PARTIALLY-ENTRAINED-AETHER. AND OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED A REFUTATION OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. AND YES I DO REALISE THAT MICHELSON-MORLEY CAME FIRST, AND YES I DO REALISE THAT I WAS BEING PARADOXICAL. THATS HOW BAD THIS RELATIVITY SCANDAL IS. IT CO-OPTS RETROSPECTIVELY ALLEGED EVIDENCE THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED A REFUTATION.

      • YOU GOT NOTHING COR. YOU AREN’T A SCIENTIST. A SCIENTIST IS A CALLING. A WAY OF LIFE. ITS NOT ABOUT GETTING SOME TAXEATER JOB.

  45. These chumps will talk about everything else BUT evidence or logic. I’m not interested in a restatement of a theory that I can easily refute. Over-ride the refutations. Or admit you are wrong. Get with reality. The physicists aren’t scientists. They are bureaucrats with applied maths degrees …… if one is being very generous.

  46. Partially entrained aether… that is just quaint… Do you get all your science from the 18th century?

    • Could be from the age of reason one supposes. But if so it was more prominent during Einsteins time. The doctrine, and the evidence in favour of it, was the reason Einstein got the Nobels for some earlier work on optics and not for his cultish work on relativity. The optics work was more valid. Whereas relativity, was a creative project, rather than a scientific one. Relativity caught on more as a priesthood deal, and a substitute religion, than because of any scientific validity. It is still held aloft by cult behavior and relentless lying. Not by evidence or reason. It was been totally refuted, both on rational grounds and in terms of the evidence. Which contradicts special relativity the entire time.

      I just basically pulled the doctrine of the partially-entrained-aether out of the air, and make no special claims for it. But via the scientific method, we would say that Michelson-Morley was at least consistent with this doctrine, and that the results would be further evidence against Einsteins version of relativity. Einsteins version of relativity is more accurately described as the ” refuted doctrine of velocity absolutism.”

      Whereas the doctrine of the partially-entrained-aether may not be fully proved, at least to my knowledge, it is a different type of doctrine, than the refuted doctrine of velocity absolutism, which has been fully disproved.

      You see we don’t (and won’t) know the full story for sure unless we return to the scientific method. Its so long since the physicists have been even doing their job. And so we don’t know the answers to a lot of stuff that we ought to know.

      We can find those answers if we look. But we have to go through mass-sackings first. Change the fundamental way we finance and go about science. Change the fundamental way we finance and go about finance, for that matter. The cultural dysfunction will continue to grow under our system of government, finance, and certain tendencies over-favoring corporatism. Two of those tendencies being government and finance. We just have to shake everything up. Not burn everything down but certainly shake everything up.

      We cannot have a system where science-workers can be so brazen in their rebellion against reason, logic, and the scientific method.

      • Then please name experimental evidence contradicting the theory of special relativity. While your entrained aether might work with michelson morley, it is no contradiction to Einstein.

      • I already have. Michelson-Morley contradicts special relativity. Every experiment that wound up with faster than light-speed contradicts the refuted doctrine of velocity-absolutism.

        But thats not the starting point. Special relativity has been proven wrong. No-ones proved it right. Not even one experiment has proved it correct. Nor all of them put together.

        For example the first experiment that generated all the hooplah. The one with the eclipse. Didn’t prove anything. Didn’t do a fucking thing. So incredibly unscientific. Its almost unbelievable. This is what happens when religion replaces science. It just becomes this unbelievable racket where anything is grabbed at and co-opted as proof, when it isn’t even evidence.

  47. What a Useless Cunt.

  48. just ban the fucking Hebrew bastard, Mr Bird

  49. The eclipse has nothing to do with special relativity. Special relativity !=general relativity

    In what way does Michelson Morley contradict special relativity. If anything it demonstrates the invariance of the speed of light with respect to the relative movement of the earth and the absence of aether ‘wind’ (in accord with SR)(On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous AEther, Philosophical Magazine Series 5, Volume 24, Issue 151 December 1887 , pages 449 – 463 ) . Other theories can explain the experiment , such as constant speed with respect to source or your entrained aether, but that is no contradiction.

    Of course other observations refuted the theory of not constant lightspeed (De Sitter, Willem (1913), “A proof of the constancy of the velocity of light”, Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 15 (2): 1297–1298) or liquid aether as Oliver Lodge found no dragging of aether by planets (even though he firmly believed in absolute aether).

    SR is consistent with all those observations while any of the other theories has experiments refuting it.

    And as you should know, you cannot prove any theory beyond doubt. But if you fail to refute it, time after time, it seems likely to be a good approximation of the truth.

    • “If anything it demonstrates the invariance of the speed of light with respect to the relative movement of the earth and the absence of aether ‘wind’ (in accord with SR)(On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous AEther, Philosophical Magazine Series 5, Volume 24, Issue 151 December 1887 , pages 449 – 463 )”

      This is the myth. The results went directly against this. There was less aether wind than expected (if you were working under that paradigm). Velocity-absolutism was not the result.

      “The invariance of the speed of light….”

      This was not the result. But clean up your English and say what you mean. That sentence does not mean what you are saying. Speak English and you will be amazed how hard it will be to stooge yourself.

      The speed of light is a specific speed close to 300 000 km per second. But light moves at all sorts of speeds. And the Michelson-Morley experiment went against the superstition that this speed was independent of the observer.

      Now it is true that there seemed to be some sort of “relativistic effect.” The results were unexpected. And still not quite explained. However there are many ideas already on the table which would allow any group of competent scientists to go right ahead and test these ideas, if the priesthood vibe wasn’t dominant. To test these ideas you would have to be following the scientific method. This is what is missing.

      • Give me some credit, english is my third language…

        The conclusions from Michelson and Morley were that the speed of the luminoferous aether was much smaller than would be expected for a fixed aether. (RIGHT BUT NOT ZERO) Repetitions have pushed the upper limit for the speed down from 4-6 times slower than orbital speed (“the relative velocity of the
        earth and the rather is probably less than one sixth the earth’s
        orbital velocity, and certainly less than one fourth.”) down several orders (i believe we are at less than 1m/s now).

        (RIGHT BUT THIS IS MORE OF A STRONG INDICATION OF RELIGION HAVING INVADED SCIENCE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. NOTICE THAT ALL THE RESULTS KEEP PUSHING ONE WAY TO GET PUBLISHED. WHY DID THE RESULTS RETROSPECTIVELY NOT CONFORM TO SOME RANDOM ERROR EITHER WAY? YOU SAY THAT NOW WE ARE DOWN TO LESS THAN 1M/S? BUT THINK ABOUT IT! WHY HAS THE RESULTS PROGRESSIVELY FALLEN TOWARDS THE THEORY? AS IF THERE WAS THE EXPECTATION IN ADVANCE THAT THEY WOULD DO SO? WHY WOULD THEY HAVE NOT FALLEN EITHER SIDE OF THE THEORY, RANDOMLY, IF THE THEORY WAS TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?)

        This is a strong indication for the isotropy of the speed of light (FALSE. AND ALSO BAD ENGLISH. WHICH ISN’T TO DO WITH YOUR RATHER EXCELLENT ENGLISH GENERALLY. BUT ITS TO DO WITH THE ORWELLIAN USE OF THE LANGUAGE TO BOLSTER THE THEORY) and a direct violation of a fixed aether. (TRUE. IT BACKS UP THE IDEA OF AN AETHER. BUT THE AETHER CANNOT BE TOTALLY FIXED (AND IN NO WAY ENTRAINED))

        This is not a proof of the invariance of the speed of light, but is very much an invariance of the speed of light with respect to eraths orbital movement as i stated above.

        In vacuum the speed of light is ^~3*10^8 m/s. It is slower in matter and never faster. What do you mean by ‘all kinds of speed’?

        (ALL KINDS OF SPEEDS INCLUDING RIGHT DOWN TO COMMUTING SPEEDS AND TO MANY TIMES C FOR SHORT PERIODS)

        Also, how did the Michelson Morley experiment go against the speed being independent of the observer?

        (YOU YOURSELF HAVE SHOWN HOW. AND IF YOU DEFINED “INDEPENDENT OF THE OBSERVER” MORE CLEARLY, YOU WOULD SEE THIS.)

  50. BG in your investigations didn’t you notice something else a bit strange? Where were the attempts to see the difference in the Michelson Morley experiments when tested for altitude? Why the dearth of such experimental testing. Everything is skewed one way to get rid of the evidence from Michelson-Morley. You’ll get one fellow testing from a mountain, and finding more of an aether effect. Next thing you know the only further testing is to “debunk” this fellow.

  51. Notice also BG. That your perceptions of Michelson-Morley have now changed under the strength of your investigation?!!!! Why would that be if there were not quasi-religious and priesthood thinking, polluting the practice? Why were both of us at one time stooged as to the outcome of that experiment?
    You ought to be starting to see a pattern here.

    • Why did the results go in one direction? That is easy.

      YES IT IS EASY AND YET YOU GOT THE ANSWER WRONG. SUPPOSING YOU HAVE A THEORY MADE AFTER THE FACT OF AN EXPERIMENT. THE EXPERIMENT DISPROVES THE THEORY, AS MICHELSON-MORLEY DISPROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. THAT IS TO SAY BY THE RESULT OF (YOU SAID) FOUR TIMES ORBITAL SPEED, OR SUCH A THING. YOUR THEORY CATCHES ON REGARDLESS OF BEING SO DISPROVED. BUT NEXT THING YOU KNOW THE EXPERIMENTS ARE FUDGING DOWN TOWARDS YOUR THEORIES PREDICTIONS. THIS OUGHT NOT HAPPEN IF YOUR THEORY IS RIGHT. RATHER THE RESULTS OUGHT TO BE HITTING RANDOMLY EITHER SIDE OF YOUR PREDICTED RESULT, IF YOUR RESULT IS CORRECT. THEREFORE YOUR RESULT ISN’T CORRECT. THE DATA IS TELLING YOU YOU’VE GOT TO SUCK IT UP AND UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER FACTORS HAVE INTERVENED.

      The result was always: The speed is at most . Michelson and Morley could not distinguish between unmoving aether and aether moving slowly. As the resolution gets better, the upper limit goes down. This has nothing to do with skewing experiments.

      As to the aether vs. mass test… I believe there were even a couple of experiments (by experimenters who really liked the idea of aether) to show entrainment of aether. No evidence for that was found.

      NO THATS NOT TRUE AT ALL. MICHELSON-MORLEY IMPLIES AETHER ENTRAINMENT. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION OF THEIR DATA. AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT EXPERIMENT SHOWS THAT TOO. SINCE YOU NEVER GET RESULTS EVENLY SPREAD OVER BOTH SIDES OF THE NULL RESULT.

      As for the fellow on the mountain. If someone did an experiment like that with results contradicting SR, of course many would try to debunk it. However, if the effect was real, they would not be able to debunk it.

      WELL THEY WEREN’T. IT WAS A SNOWJOB. THEY WEREN’T INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT WHAT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG. THERE WAS ONLY ONE MOUNTAIN EXPERIMENT ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED. SUBSEQUENTLY THEY HAD THE DEBUNKING THAT WAS NO DEBUNKING. AND THIS IS ALL BESIDES THE FACT THAT ALL EVIDENCE SO FAR REFUTED SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

      But if, as is currently believed there is no anisotropy in the propagation of the speed of light,

      YES THERE IS. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION EVERY EXPERIMENT SHOWS IT. THEY HAVE JUST BEEN MORE AND MORE SUCCESSFUL AT COVERING IT UP. AS THE RESULTS YOU ADMIT TO ALREADY SHOW.

      the debunking would be easy because the repetition of the experiment would wield nothing. (why is isotropy of the speed of light bad english or orwellian?)

      WHY WOULD A DEBUNKING BE PUBLISHED? OF COURSE IT WOULDN’T. PEOPLE DEBUNK SPECIAL RELATIVITY ALL THE TIME. ITS DEAD EASY. THEY WON’T EVER GET PUBLISHED DOING SO.

      My perceptions of Michelson Morley have not changed a great deal. I learned a bit about the precise experiments they did and the limits of said experiment.

      WHAT YOU DIDN’T LEARN IS ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. BY THEIR RESULTS MICHELSON MORLEY IS A DEBUNKING OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY. NOT ONLY THAT THE PATTERN OF SUBSEQUENT EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS BOTH DEBUNKS SPECIAL RELATIVITY, AND PROVES BIAS IN THE DATA. SINCE VALID CONFIRMING RESULTS WOULD HAVE SPREAD RANDOMLY AND EVENLY EITHER SIDE OF PREDICTIONS WERE THE THEORY TRUE. THERE IS SIMPLY NO GETTING AROUND THIS. STATISTICAL PRINCIPLES DON’T LIE, BUT SCIENCE WORKERS DO.

      But when i look at the data they published, i see noisy data that has an amazingly low amplitude considering the bad resolution of their instrument. Within the error of any MM-type experiment (the error getting smaller and smaller) each experiment was in accord with SR. It probably was also in accord with other theories, but it is the only theory giving a complete and consistent explanation of this and other experiments concerning other aspects of light propagation.

      YOU SEE YOU JUST WON’T FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. NOW PROVE THE DINGLE REFUTATION WRONG.

  52. WELL IF YOU THINK THE DINGLE REFUTATION CAN BE OVERCOME IN LOGIC LETS SEE YOU DO IT!!!!

    • Here we still see cor in rebellion against logic, reason, and the scientific method.

      Either velocities are relative or they are not. The theory of relative velocities is totally incompatible with the refuted theory of velocity absolutism.

      • I DON’T WANT A LOT OF HAND-WAIVING ABOUT IT, YOU ANTI-SCIENTIFIC ASSHOLE.

        THIS IS HOW YOU GO ABOUT IT:

        “THE DINGLE REFUTATION IS WRONG-IN-LOGIC BECAUSE ……………….. ”

        BECAUSE WHAT? SHIT-FOR-BRAINS?

        BECAUSE WHAT?

        JUST GIVE US THE ANSWER. LETS HAVE THE LOGIC.

      • Dingle is wrong because he insisted that the Lorentz transformation violated reciprocity (the old “one twin ages faster than the other, which doesn’t make sense!” trope), and yet reciprocity is explicitly built into SR. Dingle was wrong. Full stop.

        NO THATS QUITE WRONG. SINCE YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY TO SAY WHICH TWIN IS MOVING AND WHICH IS STILL DINGLE IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. DINGLE’S REFUTATION STANDS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO EINSTEINS’ ARBITRARY USE OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION. WHICH IS ITSELF ONLY A TRICK.

        DINGLES REFUTATION HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARBITRARY TRICK.

      • What a complete cunt. Throwing the Lorentz-transformation mathematical-trick in where its not needed just to confuse third parties. This is the cunty behavior that is needed to keep this refuted theory walking around, dead from the neck up.

      • NO YOU ARE A LYING CUNT. BECAUSE SR CLAIMS THAT ONE TWIN STAYS YOUNG. AND THAT ONE CLOCK MOVES MORE SLOWLY.

  53. Bullshit, MM did not say the aether speed is 1/4th or 1/6th of orbital speed, but they said it is less than that. Read the paper:

    “It appears from all that precedes reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous aether, it must be small”

    IF there is any movement. No movement is also in accordance with their experiments

    WRONG. NO MOVEMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DATA AT ALL. NOW WHAT WAS IT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT 4 TIMES ORBITAL SPEED? ANYWAY YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE FOR A THEORY EASY TO DEBUNK. AND YOU ARE REVEALING THAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOU ARE TAKING A BIPOLAR APPROACH. YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS CORRECT, WHICH IS AN IDIOTS POINT OF VIEW, AND THEN TENDENTIOUSLY TRYING TO SAY THAT IT ISN’T PROVED WRONG.

    THIS IS A TOTALLY WRONG PROCESS. YOU NEED TO LINE UP A NUMBER OF PARADIGMS AND COMPARE THEM. HOW DOES THE DATA WORK WITH THE OTHER PARADIGMS? CLEARLY THE DATA GOES AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY, SINCE WE ARE NOT SEEING RANDOM DISTRIBUTIONS AROUND EITHER SIDE OF WHAT SPECIAL RELATIVITY WOULD PREDICT. HENCE DISPROVING SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND REVEALING DATA-SKEWING.

    and in accordance with SR.

    When two theories explain one effect you need other experiments to falsify one of the theories. MM does not falsify SR, it does falsify fixed aether as postulated by Fresnel.

    Entrained aether has been falsified in all kinds of experiments most notably Mr Lodge showing that plantes do not show any signs of entraining aether and other experiments showing that the MM experiment is insensitive to masses near one of the interferometer arms.

    Unless you maintain that MM were able to measure the velocity of so-called ‘aether wind’ then please point me to the part which part of the experimental results contradict predictions from SR. If you believe that they measured the speed of aether wind…then you are not backed up by the experimenters.

    • If you would read what i wrote that they found an upper limit for the speed of aether. They cannot distinguish between no speed and 1/4th to 1/6th of orbital speed. The instrument is not sensitive enough.

      WELL THAT DISPROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY. SINCE THEY OUGHT TO HAVE GOT RESULTS EITHER SIDE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY’S PREDICTION. SO THATS A DISPROOF. THE DATA GOES AGAINST THE FUCKING THEORY. GET IT RIGHT YOU MORON.

      If you have a thermometer with a precision of 1° then you will not be able to distinguish between changes in temperature of less than one degree and no changes at all. But all that you can say if you find no changes or a fluctuation of 1° is: The changes in temperature are probably not more than 1° and surely not more than 2°. You simply cannot say anything more.

      If now subsequently you build more and more precise thermometers (and there is no change) you can refine the upper limit for changes.

  54. Supposing I just assume that modified Newton is correct and ask you to disprove it?

    Suppose I just assume the partially-entrained aether is correct and ask you to disprove it?

    Supposing I just assume augmented Lorentz relativity explained the data, and asked you to disprove it. And suppose I thought that these relativistic effects were really coming from a sort of doppler effect. And I asked you to disprove that also.

    Supposing I just assumed that relativistic effects came out of the Gaede-rope theory, as two-way action between party elastic rope like structures between protons. And that the relativistic effects came from this two-way connection that the light shock-wave travels along. So that you had some effect because there were at least some ropes in a two-way connection between the two objects……

    …. and I asked you to prove me wrong?

    Supposing I was a follower of Paul Laviolletes theory of “Sub-Quantum Kinetics” which he says predicts some relativistic effects flowing naturally out of his base level assumptions and I asked you to prove it wrong.

    Now look at all of these paradigms sequentially. Suppose, each in turn had been the ALLEGED CONSENSUS VIEW????

    Note the utter arbitrariness of the approach?

    So you see the scientific method, properly considered, demands that we line up three or more, paradigms for testing, before we spend a dollar of research money.

    As shown by the above examples, if you are not testing multiple paradigms in parallel, you simply are not doing science. You are rather going through an arbitrary process by which you can only come to an arbitrary tribal decision. But real science isn’t about tribalism.

    Now supposing I said that Special Relativity was right and asked you to disprove it. Nothing could be easier for you to do, supposing you hadn’t rebelled against reason, logic, and the scientific method.

    • If you make predictions that violate the results of an experiment it is disproven.

      THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE DID DO YOU FUCKING MORON. BUT THATS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO FALSIFY A THEORY. AND THATS NOT YOUR STARTING POINT YOU FUCKING STUPID CUNT. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS NEVER ONCE PROVEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      I’VE JUST GIVEN YOU A HALF DOZEN, NON-DISPROVEN ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN ALTERNATIVE TO A DISPROVEN PARADIGM. ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU DISMISS THEM? YOUR STARTING POINT IS TO TAKE THEM ALL ON. SPECIAL RELATIVITY COULD NOT WIN EXPECT BY REFERENCE TO ALL OTHER NON-PROVEN REASONABLE PARADIGMS. BUT IT CANNOT WIN. SINCE ITS ALREADY DISPROVEN, UNLIKE THE OTHER ONES I’VE MENTIONED.

      I’VE GOT NO FUCKING TIME FOR DUMB SCIENCE WORKERS, IN REBELLION AGAINST REASON.

  55. How many refutations do you need? Where is your Dingle refutation over-ride?

  56. Oh and also: According to the scientific method you cannot prove any theory 😉

    NO THATS QUITE WRONG. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS HOW YOU PROVE ANY THEORY. ITS ALSO HOW YOU DISPROVE ANY THEORY. WHICH IS A GREAT DEAL EASIER. SO FOR EXAMPLE ITS VERY EASY FOR ME TO DISPROVE SPECIAL RELATIVITY. BUT TO PROVE VARIOUS OTHER THEORIES, YET TO BE DISPROVED, THATS HARD YAKKA. PROBABLY BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL. SO THAT THEREFORE, THE POISON WITHIN THE SCIENCE-WORKERS CAMP IS UNACCEPTABLE.

    • NO LYING ON THIS SITE CORE. ITS EASY TO DISPROVE. THE DINGLE REFUTATION DISPROVES IT OUTRIGHT.

  57. After Dingle disprove special relativity outright by showing that no-one had the right to tell which was moving (which clock, which twin, the muon or the instrument measuring muons) they disproved party, instead of admitting they were wrong, came to the unscientific committee decision to single out one of them (ie the twin story) and to misrepresent the twins assertion as the only way out. This was scientific fraud. It is this sort of thing that keeps the utterly refuted theory walking around, getting in the way.

  58. There are idiots, drooling idiots, and special relativists. It is very clear to even the drooling idiots that the claims made by special relativity for the two clocks, the twins, muons, and subatomic particles ARE ALL THE SAME CLAIM. They are all the same example. Being the same example the Dingle refutation takes down them all. Since they are all to do with time dilation. Which cannot happen and does not happen.

  59. NO YOU ARE NEVER GETTING AWAY WITH THAT ON MY SITE. YOU SEE YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST FELLA. YOU ONLY ONLY ONLY EVER PROVE ANYTHING VIA THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.

    NOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND GET ON WITH YOUR FUCKING JOB. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE PAYING YOU FOR?

  60. Ok, different example:

    Synchrotron radiation. Explained beautifully by SR. Not explainable with classical non-relativistic approach.

    BUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS ALREADY REFUTED. IT CANNOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING. ITS A FANTASY. AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT OTHER PARADIGMS CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS? WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVES? AND THATS BULLSHIT ANYWAY. EXPLAIN YOURSELF. WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT SPECIAL RELATIVITY EXPLAINS SYNCHOTRON RADIATION. WE WILL SEE THAT YOU ARE LYING.

  61. Ok then please enlighten us what the scientific method is according to the mighty Bird.

    testing your hypothesis and finding it to be in accord with your theory is NOT proving.

    OF COURSE. THATS EXACTLY RIGHT. THATS NOT CALLED A PROOF. THAT IS CALLED A “VALIDATION” OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ……. “A FUCKING WASTE OF MONEY.” BUT THATS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOU WILL SEE THAT I’M ALWAYS EXPLAINING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. AND NEVER ONCE DID I EXPLAIN IT AS AN EXPERIMENT INVOLVING “VALIDATION” AKA “FAILURE TO FALSIFY” AKA “SCIENCE-WORKERS WASING TAXPAYER MONEY”

    THIS IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. VALIDATION IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC CONCEPT.

    If you find a lot of evidence in favor, the probability of it beeing true gets higher, but never reaches 100%. Outside of Mathematics nothing can be proven beyond any doubt.

  62. All that hoopla at the 1919 Eddington eclipse event. This was “validation” or “failure to falsify” or “A fucking waste of money”.

    In other words it had no evidence value at all. Its all just a horrendous scandal.

  63. If you are a modern science worker, you are probably getting paid and getting published running many projects that have nothing in the way of evidence value. They will use the word “validation” and then make an argument for more money to be spent.

    Always and everywhere this sort of thing is a scandal and a ripoff of the public purse. Since very little in any of these studies will contain anything with evidence value. The rebellion against the scientific method is near total.

  64. Validation is an unscientific concept?

    OF COURSE ITS AN UNSCIENTIFIC CONCEPT YOU FUCKING MORON. ALL IT MEANS IS “FAILURE TO FALSIFY”. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE A THEORY USING IT. AND FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE YOU ARE CORRECT. THEREFORE EXPERIMENTS WHICH INVOLVE VALIDATION (OR FAILURE TO FALSIFY) CONTAIN NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE. WHICH MEANS THEY ARE NOT USEFUL TO SCIENCE. WHICH MEANS THAT SUCH EXPERIMENTS AND PROJECTS ARE NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. WHICH MEANS ITS AN UNSCIENTIFIC CONCEPT.

    ALL PROJECTS OUGHT TO AIM AT VERIFYING AND FALSIFYING THREE OR MORE PARADIGMS. THEY ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL UNLESS THEY LEAD TO A RE-RANKING OF OUTSTANDING NON-FALSIFIED PARADIGMS, THEORIES OR HYPOTHESES.

    IF YOU MERELY VALIDATE SOMETHING THAT MEANS ALL YOU’VE DONE IS FAILED TO FALSIFY SOMETHING, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE WASTED RESEARCH MONEY. WHICH MEANS YOU ARE BEING FUNDAMENTALLY PARASITICAL. THIS IS BEHAVIOR THAT DIDN’T USED TO BE TOLERATED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. ITS A SIGN OF THE COLLAPSE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY IN OUR AGE.

  65. WELL SUMMARISE WHAT I’VE SAID SO FAR? WE PROVE THEORIES BY RANKING AND RE-RANKING OUTSTANDING NON-DISPROVEN THEORIES. ALWAYS WITH ABOUT 3-6 ALTERNATIVES IN MIND. WE SEEK TO FALSIFY OR VERIFY ONE THEORY OVER ANOTHER AT ALL TIMES (TO THE EXTENT OF RANKING AND RE-RANKING.)

    YOU KNOW YOUR THEORY IS RIGHT WHEN IT IS PROVEN BY CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. WHEN EVERYTHING IS CONVERGENTLY VERIFIED AND CONVERGENTLY FALSIFIED YOU WILL HAVE WOUND UP WITH THE TRUTH. SO FOR EXAMPLE WHILE WE DIDN’T ALWAYS KNOW THAT THE HEART WAS A PUMP, WE SURE KNOW THAT NOW.

    WHERE WE HAVE DISPROVEN A THEORY WE DON’T LINGER AROUND WITH IT. WHAT IS THE POINT WHEN THERE IS REAL WORK TO GET DONE? SO FOR EXAMPLE THE FUSION-ONLY THEORY OF THE SUN IS DISPROVEN BY THE FACT OF THE CORONA BEING SO MUCH HOTTER THAN THE PHOTOSPHERE. WHY BULLSHIT OURSELVES OVER THIS? AT THIS POINT I WOULD STILL KEEP THE MAINSTREAM VERSION OF THE WORKING OF STARS IN AS A DUMMY HYPOTHESIS. JUST TO MAKE UP THE SIX. BUT ITS BASICALLY DISPROVEN. AND OF COURSE SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS DISPROVEN. UNLIKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, THE MAINSTREAM VERSION OF THE WORKING OF THE SUN AT LEAST HAD SOME MERIT.

  66. Please learn about the temperature of plasmas before sprouting such nonsense.

    WHAT???? WHAT IDIOCY IS THAT?

    SUPPOSING YOU ARE ON TRIAL AND ITS A SETUP. IF THE JUDGE TAKES THE VIEW THAT YOU ARE GUILTY, AND FOLDS HIS ARMS AND ASKS YOU TO PROVE YOU ARE INNOCENT …… WELL IF HE TAKES YOUR ATTITUDE TO TRUTH THEN YOU HAVE NO CHANCE.

    OBVIOUSLY THE JUDGE OUGHT TO LOOK AT ALL VERSIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED AND HONE IN ON THE TRUTH, RANKING AND RE-RANKING THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS IN PARALLEL. IF HE DOESN’T DO SO HE’LL END UP LETTING ALL THE BAD GUYS GO AND HANGING ALL THE INNOCENT.

  67. Graeme, it would be nice to see what BG and cor’s arguments actually are, but you keep on deleting their comments.

    IF THEY HAD GOOD AND HONEST ARGUMENTS I’D INCLUDE THEM OF COURSE. YOU KNOW THAT. DON’T BE LYING AND PRETENDING OTHERWISE. I MYSELF HAVE A LOT OF SEARCH-FOR-TRUTH PROJECTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THESE PARASITICAL ASSHOLES INVOLVED WITH. SO OBVIOUSLY I’M NOT GOING TO DENY THEM (OR THE PUBLIC) SHOULD THEY MAKE A POINT, BOTH GOOD AND HONEST.

    • Just tell me this, why are you such a coward on this blog?


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: