Well-worded Ron. It would have been an EXCELLENT link. But the problem is that out of the listed falsifications for relativity ………. about two-thirds of them are sound. The rest are either speculative, or for some of them;….. it looks as though some lefty poser has infiltrated the site to make the side of reason look bad.
Take this one for example:
“9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.”
No Western Christian conservative, who was also a scientist, would throw that into this forum. Good scientists who are Christians know that they have to separate their fields of thought lest they lose or pervert one or the other. Good scientists who are Christians fall in the tradition laid down by Aquinas of separating categories. Aquinas got this from Aristotle. And Aristotle naturally had this attribute because he started off basically as a biologist, and so was interested in the taxonomy of things.
So Aquinas would say that something that is a sin, need not necessarily be a crime. If he were here today he would be a constitutional originalist, since he would know that it was more important to have a constitution then to get every last individual judgement the fairest it could be on the micro level.
The tendency to taxonomy is also mightily assisted by the story of the saviour of Christianity being backed up against the wall by these Pharisees, and making the comeback that said that we must render to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. This is one of the many examples of zen cool under pressure that the stories have this incredibly zen character (here I am appraising the character as if he were a creation of literary fiction) displaying. But quite aside from that … the Christian, who is a scientist (as opposed to the “Christian Scientist”) has been raised on that story and instinctively keeps various matters separate.
A third factor which makes non-fundamentalist Christians, superior scientists in 2010, is that they retain the scientific humility. They don’t want to invent reality like the leftist scientist. They say to themselves on some implicit level, that this is Gods universe, and they merely want to discover the wondrous results of his works. They are going to be quite happy with anything “the man” has come up with, and do not seek to rival Him in His creativity.
I don’t need to be a believer to stay solid with the scientific calling, and this might be something to do with being an high-IQ-ADD character, and ex-dipso. But I can see superior scientific acumen when its presented to me.
So yeah thats a “good” link Ron. A good link that should have been excellent. But the site has been infiltrated by people who are not coming from a righteous point of view. So one has to do ones own editing.
I want to repeat that I’m not a believer. But I am an admirer and well-wisher of Christianity and am particularly in line with some aspects of the Catholic intellectual tradition.
This despite the fact that I’ve grown a little bit wary and suspicious of the majority of people brought up in early Catholic education. This is a prejudice rather than any confirmed theory. And of course as a prejudice it is very much open to correction.
Here is another suspect point that is only half-right.
“18. The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
The only device based on relativity is the atom bomb, but that has destroyed far more lives than it’s saved so it can hardly be considered useful.”
If the theory was efficacious for good or for evil, this would count in its favor. Its true that not much has come out of it. I think they are being too generous suggesting that the nuclear and hydrogen bombs came out of this theory, except perhaps from the publicity (that Einsteins formula for the equivalence of mass and energy) generated.
Actually I suspect that the theory of relativity is useful, in that it probably throws curves at new miscreants trying to make an atom bomb. I’ve not been presented with any evidence that protons are destroyed in the explosion, and one suspects that the expectation that they must be destroyed, to produce the explosion, has held up, delayed,and hampered, many a bomb-making project.
The extraordinary energy locked into the nucleus was probably evident from the earlier work of Marie Curie and her husband.
……..(((( My own view is that where we see “Neutrons”, we have an energy source that we ought to be able to tap.)))))))……
However one would probably concede that Einsteins striking (and probably wrong) theory helped the Manhattan project along, by making the issue easy to understand to the politicians, and by animating the scientists. So on that level we would say that the atom bomb came out of the theory, not from the science of it, but from the public relations effect.
Thanks for alerting me to the usefulness of this encyclopedia. You see its not just me and a few oddballs that have grown more and more impatient with these fallen-priests and public-servants that are out there posing as scientists.
Government surpluses, high levels of retained earnings in business, and high savings rates (these three coupled with stable monetary policy that is) ……. These three are all things that can serve to help us keep out of recession. Here I use the term “recession” to mean a sudden downturn in real economic activity, rather than some technically derived condition based on the GDP metric.
So no you have things backwards. You need some remedial work on Austrian capital theory. You keep out of recession in two ways. By stable monetary conditions, and by making sure that the ratio of business-to-business-spending/total spending, is sufficiently high.
That is to say that consumer spending and parasitism is sufficiently low.
You escape recession (that is to say REAL RECESSION) by government spending cuts, cuts to dividends, cuts to consumer spending, wage and salary moderation, price reductions, debt forgiveness, and sometimes by judicious monetary expansion (this last depending on circumstance.)
I’m going to ask that you refrain from commenting on each and every other comment in this thread … you’ve made your point, and I’ve rebutted it, and we’ve had a debate.
If you want to make a new point, that’s great. It seems like you’re making the same point over and over. I’m all for debate about macro-economics but where you comment in this fashion, it actually clogs up the comments thread and retards debate. I’m going to ask the powers that be that future comments that simply re-iterate points you’ve already made will be moderated.
Take note of this house-niggers ringcraft. He’s a clever house-nigger ringcraft-wise. He just has no idea about economics is all.
Eltham sounds like a fractional-reservist surname to me, Mr Bird. Further confirmation of your theories, I guess.
RON. THE TWO MOST CONVINCING ANTI-FRACTIONAL RESERVE VOICES IN HISTORY ARE PROBABLY MURRAY ROTHBARD AND GEORGE REISMAN. BOTH OF THESE GUYS ARE SECULAR THINKERS, FROM AN ORIGINALLY JEWISH BACKGROUND. YOU OUGHT TO BE MORE FAIR. I’M NOT HAVING THE SINS OF BIGSHOT BANKERS PUT ON THE HEAD OF LITTLE JEWISH GIRLS.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on August 10, 2010 at 6:38 am
“Firstly, what is your basis for belief that if we continue to increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that we will be able to “adapt” to resulting climatic changes? For example, how will Europeans adapt to a cessation of the Gulf Stream?”
Good Lord thats a confused argument. Thats like saying “if you get real hot, how are you to adapt when you take your jacket off …. for surely you will freeze to death”
The argument is more silly than that. Since the Gulf-stream didn’t stop when we were in the Medieval warm period, the Roman warming, or in the holocene maximum. All three periods were warmer than we can so much as hope to get now. Indications are that the Gulf Stream can only be halted PHYSICALLY. IE by physical obstruction.
Though a warmer world might mean less differential heat between the poles and the equator, this factor may slow, but is not capable of actually stopping, the Gulfstream. And there is some compensation from the lesser heat differential, due to warmer water having less viscosity.
In any case the above considerations are all rather academic, since the evidence indicates that we are going into a cooling period, and not into any sort of warming period.