Posted by: graemebird | February 29, 2012

The Inherent Instability Of The Galaxy And Solar System

Why do the planets rotate, and why do most of them rotate in the same direction? Why do they orbit pretty closely to the same plane? Why are galaxies flat rather than three dimensional? We can answer these questions here. And when we do so, it will become clear, that almost as of necessity, the galaxy, and the solar system, are unstable, dangerous, and eventful.  It had to be that way.

Earth is clearly a very old planet. Which implies that we are fortunate enough to live in a sheltered neighbourhood. But this knee-jerk idea, that every change that ever happens in this solar system, happened billions of years ago …….   well there is no truth to this.

Earlier I have put forward the principle that; Reality can only exist when a form of matter develops, that can convert “stuff” to matter.

So what we are saying here is that matter creates (or rather converts “stuff” to) more matter. And if it didn’t reality as we know it would be impossible. Think of crystals growing and maybe you’ll have the idea.  “Stuff” is defined as proto-matter, not locked into the gravitational network.  Let no-one, (FOR FUCKSAKES) confuse “stuff” as I use the term here, with the public servants “Dark Matter”.  This “Dark Matter” doesn’t exist, its bullshit, its an embarrassment, a fudge factor. The concept is just a fucking disgrace.  On the other hand, co-incidentally, you would have to expect that the amount of “stuff” is vastly greater than the amount of matter.  The matter is a small subset of what I am calling “stuff”.

Matter converts “stuff” to more matter, by bringing this stuff into the gravitational network.  Each proton in the galaxy  (at the very least) is connected to every other, directly or indirectly or the phenomenon we call “gravity” would be impossible.  Now while it seems more than clear that the visible universe is much more compact then the public servants think, and in no way is the universe expanding at anything like the rate at which the public servants claim, still there is good reason to believe that the universe is expanding somewhat. But how is such expansion possible?

I would say that the natural expansion (in the first instance) comes because the new matter created, is created with the momentum of the matter doing the conversion.  And that this (effectively) EXTRA momentum, will kick in because the new matter will be connected locally, prior to being fully connected with the rest of the galaxy.  So the natural way of things is for orbits to have a bias towards getting a tiny bit bigger all the time. Right away we ought to see that this slight expansionary tendency is entirely necessary for reality as we know it to exist. Since with the only force, acting over long distances, being a PULL-FORCE, it becomes very clear that the natural tendency would then be towards what we might call “clumping”.   This can be easily demonstrated by the following thought experiment ;

Supposing you have a lot of magnets in a near weightless and near frictionless environment. So there is a compartment in your near-earth-orbit satellite and you pump all the air out of it. You have powerful magnets, but they are covered in rubber to make these pretty bouncy rubber balls. So you don your spacesuit, and you go into this compartment and you start throwing these rubber-covered magnets (very powerful magnets) around. And you just try and add a little momentum to the balls that have lost some momentum. It ought to be pretty clear that the natural tendency is for the magnets to wind up clumping together over time.  So for a viable existence to exist, there needs to be a tiny expansionary factor, to moderate the natural tendency of the only force that acts over long distances. The only force that acts over long distances is a PULL FORCE.  As Gaede points out, there is only really two forces in the universe and they are PUSH and PULL. And pull implies continual connection.

So for the meantime, I’m saying that the expansionary tendency is mainly to do with new matter creation, wherein the new matter, acquires the velocity of the old matter that has converted that new matter. There will be other slightly expansionary forces. For example, two objects moving too close to eachother in an highly electrically charged environment, will tend to discharge out at eachother, and here is a slightly anti-clumping factor right there.

When objects pass through space-as-we-know-it (as opposed to a purist version of space) they are encountering some resistance. We have the solar wind after all.  And “cosmic rays” as it were.  Well of course this resistance is tiny. Nonetheless time goes on forever, and so even the tiniest resistance ought to register.  So we need to explain why it would be that orbits would tend to expand rather than contract, a tiny bit.  And I haven’t seen a plausible explanation for that myself.

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

IN THE BEGINNING

No NOT in the beginning. Its not important to figure out if or how things got started. With the caveat that “time” is a derived concept, that is indispensable for us to make sense of things, with the caveat that “there is no such thing as time”, properly considered, the reality is that we have to merely assume that time is endless. Or if not endless we have to suggest that the laws of probability, make the idea that we are anywhere close to a beginning or an end point, a trillion-to-one proposition. So implausible as to cast aspersions on the person harbouring such a foolish idea. So rather than looking for a beginning to existence, we need to look at something close to an equilibrium. I don’t have a word for the idea I’m looking for here.  We ought not assume a full-blown equilibrium, but rather a concept close to it.  A sort of normalcy. A state of established and permanent functioning. The universe may indeed be expanding to some extent. Such evidence as we have suggests moderate expansion……….

((((((((((Its a bit much to suggest that matter cannot be created or destroyed, since the matter is here, and must have gotten here somehow. And to suggest dogmatically that there must always be the same amount of matter present, separates time into an age of miracles, and a prosaic age. To separate time into an age of miracles and a prosaic age is to take a pseudo-religious and mystical approach to what is a scientific matter. So we will not talk about ultimate beginnings. We will make a couple of thought experiments, and then jump ahead to the nature of this organic “equilibrium” state we have to assume that we are in.))))))))

………. so I’m not implying, by the use of the word “equilibrium” as a stand-in, for a better word-or-phrase, that I cannot come up with as yet ……. I’m not implying by the use of “equilibrium” that the universe maintains a steady state, conserving energy and mass. As things stand the universe that the science workers instruments can perceive,  appears to expand, but at a moderate rate.

Imagine that matter creates more matter and that we have two moon-sized planets, whose growth has taken billions of years, and have grown totally independently of eachother.  Now because they have grown up independently, their velocities are entirely independent of eachother.  But they have each mastered the capacity to create new matter, in total independence.  In this thought experiment there is no other matter around, except in these two moons. Also there is no local aether conditions to speak of. When the two moons come close to eachother, naturally the protons begin forming connections with the other protons coming into their midst, but aside from that there is no local aether. So that if the moons, were moving, in relation to eachother, 50 times the speed of light, then there were no local aether conditions, which would serve to slow them down to light speed in relation to each-other.  So because the two objects had discovered the mechanism which makes reality possible INDEPENDENTLY, we would say that they could moving at 100 times the speed of light in relation to eachother.  Or only as fast as a jet fighter in relation to eachother. There is no maximum relative velocity that we can claim that they have to be moving with relation to eachother. But in our story they are coming at eachother faster than the escape velocity of each of them, so they pass eachother, for the first and only time.

The natural thing, for two such objects, is for each to pass each-other, affect each-others trajectory, but for that meeting to be a one-time event.  However, what if one of these objects was moon-sized and the other had developed to become a star?  You probably need to have a magnetic field to become a star. And to develop a magnetic field, you are going to need planets. Or if you are a planet, you will likely require a moon to develop a magnetic field of any importance. But putting all that aside, let us pretend that one of the objects has developed all the way to star status, and the other is moon-sized. Lets also imagine that the moon-sized object, has attracted an entourage of rocks, that stretch backwards a long way in three-dimensions.  Now another factor comes into play.  A star builds up a massive electrical capacitance.  Around that star, we have therefore a field that is akin to the region around one of those bug-zappers. A bug flies near a bug-zapper, and discharges the electrical capacitance buildup, thereby getting electrocuted.  The moon-sized object, with its entourage of rocks comes into the stars bug-zapping region, and it lights up electrically.  A star is a thing that develops a proton wind.  An electron wind as well, but these two don’t cancel eachother, as is imagined.  What happens is that the moon-sized object now starts capturing this onslaught of protons and electrons, and in my view there will be fusion taking place. You see the mainstream reckons that fusion is about high molecular speeds, high temperatures (the two going together) and powerful impacts between independent particles.  Whereas in my view fusion takes place easily in a situation of high electrical charge.  So as a result of this onslaught of protons and electrons, in a massively charged environment, in my view, this is the reason that water vapor and hydrocarbons start forming in the tail of the moon-sized object.  What we have here is a comet.  And this comet has lit up.

Now why is this important? Well the moon-sized object now has a comet tail.  The region will be highly electrically charged, and this will lead to tail-drag.  Tail-drag is where the tail is drawn into the nucleus, due to the high and increasing electrical charge, and this causes a force EXTRA TO GRAVITY ALONE, which will serve to CIRCULARISE the orbit of the moon-sized object around the star. The point is that we have an extra force, other than gravity, conspiring now to keep the objects together, and to have it that one object is orbiting the other.  As we have seen, the natural way of things is for the two objects to meet but once, alter eachothers trajectory, and never meet again.  But we came to that conclusion when thinking about the effect of gravity alone.  But electrical energy plays a role in the circularisation of orbits. This is the James McCanney view of comets. Its an extremely solid model.  I don’t know whether he thinks that the comets are forming their water vapor, and hydrocarbons, directly out of the solar wind. I cannot speak for him. But I felt it necessary to point out where this view of comets is coming from.

So now we jump ahead. Having noted that when it comes to explaining orbits, we have another mechanism on the fly, other than just gravity alone.

Lets ask a few questions at this point that we intend to answer.

1. Why has Venus the most circular orbit?

2. Why has Jupiter, the most angular momentum?

Don’t wait for an answer from the mainstream for these oddities. But with regards to the thinking of this article, these questions become readily answerable, as do the initial questions on this thread.

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

Now we jump ahead to a situation of two large bodies.  A situation where we have solar system, featuring a star, akin to our own, and a large planet like Jupiter. Jupiter also has a proton wind. And therefore, could be considered a star, if we were defining stars by whether they have a proton wind or not.  So here we have the sun, and we have Jupiter. But heretofore no other planets. How will matters flow from that starting point? Imagine a moon-sized comet and entourage coming into this situation. Now supposing it comes in from outside Jupiter, either below or above the ecliptic, and heading sunward.  Well when its above the ecliptic Jupiter will pull it downward. When it is BELOW the ecliptic Jupiter will pull it upward. Here we have another factor normalising orbits.  But suppose it comes from the opposite direction, starting closer to the sun then Jupiter, but heading in the direction of Jupiter at a steep angle.  Think about these two alternatives. The second is a counter direction then what is normal to the orbits of planets. The thing about this situation, is that we probably won’t see this comet again. Its a one-time event. Its behavior will affect the orbit of Jupiter, and its rotation, to some extent. But it will do so only once.  Whereas in the first situation, we will expect this comet to keep returning many times, each time its orbit becoming smaller, and more circularised, until it becomes another planet.

So we have this bias when it comes to comets. Comets coming from the wrong direction still affect the orbit of existing planets AND the speed of their rotation. But only once.  Whereas comets which are already in a position to increase the angular momentum of the rotation of existing planets, we will see these comets many times, until they become a moon or a planet, or until they crash into an existing body,  and either way, they will have added their momentum to the ROTATION  of existing planets. This is why the ROTATION of most of the planets is in the same direction. Its the result of repeated interaction with passing comets. If we have a planet, or a moon, that is rotating counter to the norm, we must assume that it is a new planet, or a new moon, or at least new in terms of its current position in our solar system.

So why has Venus the most circular orbit? Its a new planet, and has not had time for comets to make its orbit less circular. How did Venus’ normalize its orbit in the first place? It came in with a huge entourage, and tail drag helped normalize its orbit. Why does Jupiter have the most angular momentum? Its the planet that interacts with comets far more than any other planet, and its been around a lot longer than the other planets. Its fast rotational speed represents the absorption of the momentum of countless passing comets.  Why is Venus’ rotation so slow and counter to the normal rotation of planets? Its a new planet. Its counter-rotation is the result of sheer chance. It will take millions of years, and many encounters with comets to bring the rotation in line with most of the other planets.

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

Note one thing very important. The further out you get, the less circularised orbits are.  Pluto’s orbit is not powerfully circular for example. And Pluto goes way higher and lower than the plane that Jupiter orbits in. The further you go out, the less interaction you have with Jupiter to bring the orbiting planet down to the normal plane of orbit, and the less electrical charge you have to produce tail drag, which helps circularize ones orbit, supposing you show up with an entourage.

Now its time to make ones mind shift. Let us think of the normal orbit as not circular, and on the ecliptic. Because there are thousands of planets and comets that orbit our sun. Thousands.  They had a small search for some not long ago, and they found maybe forty new planets.  Thats only those planets that can be detected from earth. I don’t think the forty or so are fully proven and fleshed out.  But its hard to know whether NASA would tell us one way or the other. If we really had a good look we’d find a great many more of them. If we sent huge telescopes out into space and so forth.  Now the general principle arises, that there is a tendency for those planets that are further out , to orbit less on the ecliptic and in less circular fashion.  The orbits become more and more RADIAL.  And we ought to think of the radial orbit as the more natural orbit.  Its the orbit you have when tail drag and Jupiter has not circularised your orbit.

When thinking of radial orbits, it can be useful to think of them as up-and-down orbits. Like when a ball is thrown straight up in the air. As it travels upward, it slows, as it comes down it speeds up.  But instead of hitting the ground, we think of a radial orbit as being where the object dips beneath the sun, at a very fast speed, and then gets thrown up high.  The orbit of Sedna may give you a bit of an idea of how a radial orbit works:

“Sedna has the longest orbital period of any known large object in the Solar System[f], calculated at around 11,400 years.[4][g] Its orbit is extremely eccentric, with anaphelion estimated at 937 AU[4] and a perihelion at about 76 AU, the most distant perihelion ever observed for any Solar System object.[22

So there is Sedna, dipping under the sun, at 76 times the mean distance of earths orbit, and then it gets thrown up to a “height” of 937 times earths mean orbital distance.  And its useful to think of it as an up-and-down deal, because it gives you an idea of the relative speeds, in each part of the planets orbit. Sedna is currently pretty close to the closest it ever gets to the sun. And whereas, compared to Earth, Sedna is currently moving very slowly around the sun, if we compare its current orbital speed with the speed it travels at, when its a great deal further from the sun,  its currently involved in a mega-sprint. Its fair zooming around.

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

One of the main points I’m trying to make here is that unless proven otherwise, we have to assume that orbits are a great deal more radial than we have given them credit for being.  So now we come to the galaxy at large. But trying to make sense of the galaxy at large starts with extrapolating from what we have already. I would say that moons enlarge to rocky planets, rocky planets to gas giants, and gas giants to stars. I would say that at every stage moons, planets and stars are being culled.  Comets form into planets, and the distinction between a comet and an outer planet, is sometimes one of size, but the more relevant distinction is that the comets orbit brings it inside the bug-zap region of the star.  So Sedna is no comet. But if an object Sedna’s size accelerates into the inner solar system, it will bring with it an entourage, and it will “discharge the solar capacitor” and it will thus appear to us explicitly as a comet.  If it is large enough, each time it does so, it will reappear larger, and as it gets larger the tail drag circularising its orbit will become more powerful.  Until such time as it becomes a planet.

In my view stars will become larger and larger until they are destroyed. But their ultimate fate, should they survive long enough, is to become a “dark rift”.  Remember that Jupiter, or the second oldest body in any solar system, will tend to grab most of the angular momentum.  But the star also will spin quickly. Its not to be thought that the sun will outlive Jupiter, so Jupiter could end up as a star with a lot of spin. In any case stars and planets will tend to accumulate spin. So if you survive long enough to become a dark rift, at the centre of a galaxy, you are going to be spinning very quickly.  Bodies that spin quickly become more spheroidal.

THE DARK RIFT, AT THE CENTRE OF THE GALAXY, IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID, BUT OF A FAR MORE EXTREME VARIETY THEN DEPICTED HERE.

Our dark rift ought to be spinning so fast, and be so oblate, as to appear more or less flat. This follows directly from the analysis in this thread.

“Galactic spheroid

The bulk of the stars in a spiral galaxy are located either close to a single plane (the galactic plane) in more or less conventional circular orbits around the center of the galaxy (the galactic center), or in a spheroidal galactic bulge around the galactic core.”
So the mainstream says that most stars in the galaxy form more or less conventional circular orbits??? Do they know that? How do they know that? When by their own admission, they believe that it takes 100 million years for an average galaxy to rotate, all the way around, just once? No for the meantime, we have to reject such a hubristic diagnosis, and go with the general principle that orbits, will tend to be pretty damn radial, unless or until, they encounter a process that can help circularise them.  We have to suggest that this “more or less conventional circular orbits” jive is wrong until proven otherwise. Because the reality is that circular orbits are entirely unconventional. A rarity.  A function of specific mechanisms.  We have to assume that stars orbit the dark rift in a way that would lead them to get closer at part of their orbit and a great deal further away at other parts of their orbit. And our planet being very old, we have to assume that we were once closer to the centre of the galaxy, and once a great deal further from the centre of the galaxy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now some of you will have noticed that this story is all about growth.  About going from being a small outer planet, or a moon of a larger planet, and surviving until a trillion years later you are a dark rift, and the rest of the galaxy is rotating around you. You may have started as a chunk of rock, 100 kilometres across, carrying a large entourage with you, and spending some of your orbit as a comet, then you get captured and become a planet, a trillion years later you wind up with your own galaxy, and almost every body you encountered along the way is long deceased.  Well we have the mechanism for continual culling.  We have had witnesses to the culling of stars throughout history.  Stars explode. They don’t collapse and then explode. They just explode. And we would have to assume when stars explode that planets and moons explode also. Because the mainstream mechanism for a supernova is based on a wrong theory of how stars work. Their dogma is that a lot of hydrogen is turned into helium via fusion at the centre of the star. And in this story the hydrogen gets a little depleted, the fusion reaction dies down, and the stars gravitational potential takes over and the star first collapses and then explodes.
Well stars don’t work anything like that.  So thats bullshit.  And the implication is that planets and moons will also explode, due to the same shockwaves, and that we have continual culling. So the picture I’m putting out is growth and culling.  Now back to the idea that this universe as we know it, must be trillions of years old, time being endless.  So if it was all about growth and expansion alone, then we’d wind up with very little space and heaps of matter.  But that hasn’t happened. And once we get rid of the fantasy that we are a young universe, we interpolate a great deal of culling.  Culling indeed set off before we can have too much in the way of density across any galaxy or any cluster of galaxies. We would want to look for the mechanisms which set off galactic centre explosions, leading to exploding stars and planets.  Because already we have the history of it, and the model of the galaxy which would seem to make such relentless culling more or less inevitable.
Advertisements

Responses

  1. The so-called skeptics are the stupidest people in the world today. Think of the issue of Obama’s eligibility. Its been evident right from the start that it was totally suspect.

    Just get used to it. The US is now a banana republic run by a shadow government:

    • I KNOW THAT ITS ONLY REASON AND LOGIC DUMMY. BUT ITS IMPORTANT TO SOME OF US.

    • Only an idiot like yourself would imagine that its not a serious matter for a President to be forging certificates, which have a bearing on his eligibility. Objectively it is proven that he’s an illegal alien, no matter what fakery the shadow government comes up with next.

      • NO ITS A FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN FORGING CERTIFICATES. THIS IS A FACT. NOW WHETHER HE HAS THE REAL ONES, WELL WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT HE HASN’T, AND THAT ANY ONE THAT APPEARS REAL IS A BETTER FORGERY THEN HE HAS EVERY BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH SO FAR. BUT ITS A PROVEN FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO PASS OFF EXTREMELY LAME FORGERIES. THIS IS A FACT. AND I’D FUCKING BREAK YOUR FACE FOR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO LIE ABOUT IT.

  2. YES YES YES. I’M AWARE OF YOUR IRRATIONAL BELIEF THAT COMETS ARE SNOWBALLS. YOU REPULSIVE IDIOT. NO SNOW, NO BALL, YET YOU THINK THEY ARE SNOWBALLS. GO OUT, FIND A HOMELESS PERSON, AND GET HIM TO VOMIT ON YOU. THAT IS ALL A GROWNUP MALE WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT REASON CAN EVER DESERVE.

  3. This is a very serious matter that Obama has been proven to be attempting to pass off proven forgeries. Its not a fucking laughing matter. And its not something that Catallaxy ought to be ignoring. This level of irresponsibility on the part of Catallaxy really pisses me off.

  4. No one gives a rat’s whether Obama was or was not a US citizen.

    It is irrelevant.

    All Americans are immigrants.

    And illegal immigrants today – in their millions – are the very mainstay of the US economy.

    • No its important. If someone doesn’t give a rats, thats a problem with them. Some sort of normalcy bias. Some sort of deal where being conned, allows one to accept a new reality that ought not be accepted. The new reality being foisted on them by the con itself.

      Its all about the rule of law. Its got nothing to do with his skin color. Furthermore, it means something. No-ones going to back a talentless fraud, who isn’t even eligible to run, unless they have an excellent reason to split and distract those who are responsible enough to take the law seriously.

      Its pretty clear that they backed a fraudulent usurper to hide from an even bigger scandal. The even bigger scandal being 9/11. The usurpation didn’t just fall out of the sky. The usurpation must have been planned and carried out for a reason. Its more than clear what that reason was.

    • I concur with Phil’s view. So let’s break it down, maybe 50% of people don’t care, 49% accept that Obama is eligible, which leaves 1% who are mostly closet racist douchebags like you who make an issue out of it.

      • It doesn’t matter that people don’t care about important things. This is a problem for them.

  5. Rule of law? Hilarious. How libertarian of you.

    • Well their ought to be less laws, under libertarian thinking. But the laws ought to be good laws, and adhered to.

  6. If Obama was white, would you be making the same argument? No, So it is a race thing. Which is pretty despicable.

    • Yes of course I would. Don’t be ridiculous. He doesn’t get off the hook murdering a non-combatant, US citizen, and then murdering his 16 year old kid and bystanders just because he’s black. And he doesn’t get off the hook usurping the Presidency, for his overlords, and putting about fake documentation. I’m deeply surprised by this line of reasoning. Black people would have to be very disappointed that anyone has such low expectations for them.

  7. You’re pulling my leg now. This is a non-argument based on false premises.

  8. Really I don’t get it. I don’t get your argument. If anyone acted in this way, naturally I’d be appalled. So I’m appalled that this fellow has acted in this way.

    But he clearly didn’t do so alone. He was an unknown, with no capacity to grab the Presidency illegally, without a coterie of backers carrying this plan out and doing so for very good reasons. So this could not be a more important issue. We are seeing the systematic destruction of this country. Its not something to be happy or flippant about. We are seeing deliberately destructive behaviour by some shadowy characters. Of course I’m pissed with this no-account conman, but he’s hardly the only criminal to be worked up about.

  9. You won’t get any where arguing illegitimacy, asw you can’t prove it and it is irrelevant and of no interest either way to the majority of Americans (let alone Australians or New Zealanders). Strategically useless. It’s a massive distraction from the real issues which are policies, action and speech. That’s what needs to be scrutinised and critiqued. Your focus s just mucking around.

    • No no no. You cannot get anywhere, claiming its irrelevant. You are only claiming that because its a done deal. Its just an odd version of Stockholm Syndrome. Presented as it is as a fait accompli, most people centre of gravity is shifted by the fact of the con itself.

  10. You’ve got to realise that this centre-of-gravity shift, must have been anticipated by the genocidalist scum who put him up to this Quixotic plan in the first place. Try imagining, that you were sitting in on the machinations. The sort of cynicism that would have been going on in the rooms where this outrage was planned. Bearing in mind, that the people who backed him, must be the same scum who murdered all those people on 9/11 and now were scrambling not to be busted for it.

    If it were just this fellow it would be bad enough. But the idea that he was going to promise to end the wars, when he knew his brief was to expand them. That he was going to initiate a health plan as a way of intimidating everyone. All these childish plans, and yet they have gotten away with it. They now molest children at airports. You’ve got to have burly sickos feeling up little girls at airports apparently. All these outrages planned and carried out by the same vermin who got a conman to take the Presidency.

    Anyone who thinks that the US is a democracy must explain the existence of the TSA. A bizzare organization engaged in mass sexual molestation, for no reason at all. And molesting the people normally thought to carry a great deal of sway in the electorate.

  11. The only people who think America is a democracy are pencil-dicks like JC and SInclair Davidson.

    You want to focus on process rather than outcomes go right ahead.

    But don’t for a moment think that any of that is deal breaker. It ain’t.

    • People have to be able to focus on more than one issue at the same time. The fact that he has been a disastrous President surely doesn’t let him off the hook for being a criminal. We don’t want to get pulled in five directions here. Yes he’s a criminal. Yes he’s a crap President. Yes he’s a puppet. None of these three cancel the other two out.

    • I JUST DON’T GET THAT COMEBACK CAMBRIA. WHAT GIRL DOESN’T?

  12. I agree with all that about Obama, puppet, criminal, disaster, and a lot more, just that to single out and elevate, as you do, the matter of his alleged or possible fake citizenship, which is a small minority pov in the US, is tactically neither useful nor productive in effectively opposing and exposing the substance of what he represents and does as US President today.

  13. Here’s a fraud archive, should anyone still be in some tiny doubt about it. Unless of course someone is hypothesising the idea that Obama just casually produces dud documents, even though he’s got the real ones in his back pocket. That would be some thesis to work with:

    http://www.carlgallups.com/obama.html

  14. Looks like Andrew Breibart was murdered by the shadow government.

  15. The bunker story doesn’t hold up:

  16. Some People Never Do Get Home.

  17. From Elsewhere:

    Graeme Bird :
    07 Mar 2012 5:34:35pm
    Its not that one is unsympathetic to the points that Swan is trying to make. But he’s an economic illiterate.

    “Too bad he didn’t show the same fighting spirit in the dying days of the Rudd government when the original and much more robust mining tax was dumped unceremoniously.”

    But that was a really really bad tax. We know what tax most closely fits with economic rent. The tax is royalties. Royalties and royalties alone. The idea was to get rid of any profits tax, any auctions, any lease fees, and to boost up royalties through the roof. Instead Labour went the exact wrong way with it. The entirely wrong direction.

    Just because you make some good points, and have valid concerns, doesn’t make it okay to pursue those points and concerns with inept and harmful means. And here we have Swan pulling the same incompetent act again. Taking a swipe at a businessman, who had come out of nowhere. Clearly a high-achiever. Of all the people to pick on, the dimwit picked on Andrew Forrest. Can we not find someone who isn’t an idiot, and promote them near the top of Labour? I don’t think this is too much to ask.

    Reply Alert moderator

    • NO NO. YOU ARE JUST A FUCKING IDIOT, WHO THINKS THAT COMETS ARE SNOWBALLS (NO SNOW NO BALL NO SNOWBALL) AND WHO ALSO THINKS THAT PH, IMPORTANT TO ALL LIFE, IS NOT IMPORTANT TO THE HUMANS.

      I’VE TOLD YOU. YOU HAVE REJECTED REASON AND LOGIC. GO OUT ONTO THE STREET, GET A FUCKING WHINO TO TAKE A SHIT ON YOU. BECAUSE ANYONE WHO REJECTS REASON, IS NO LONGER DESERVING OF ANYTHING BETTER THAN THAT. IN FACT YOU OUGHT TO BE GRATEFUL TO THE WHINO AND WEEP TEARS OF JOY.

      BUT LOGICALLY SPEAKING, ALKALINE WATER OUGHT TO BE A STRONGER THERAPY THAN ANYTHING A BERRY HAS TO OFFER.

  18. I suspect she would think that I would do that once in awhile. Stop stalking me you sicko.

  19. I suspect my own blood was in that appalling state a couple of years back. You cannot beat the objective evidence as shown under a microscope. Of course that means nothing to a primitive like yourself. Evidence means nothing to useless eaters like you. I suspect you are Jo Cambria after all. No two different people can be this retarded.

    I cannot speak for the berry, but improvements indeed ought to be that fast, if you can alter the pH level. Its not the berry that counts you fucking moron. Its the pH change. Not the berry you repulsive degenerate. Its what you can do to your pH that counts.

    Plus these days I have a machine that measures voltage. Not with total accuracy. But good enough to notice a difference when alkaline water is used. Note that a young vegetarian at work has consistently high voltage readings. Of the sort which takes me a lot of effort to achieve. Its all science you fuckwit. Its only science, but science is what I believe in. I can believe in little else.

  20. You fucking useless cunt. Of course in the first instance you’d expect alkaline water to be more powerful than any berry. Shit you are a retard. You cannot eat four litres of berries a day, and the alkaline water has the full power of the mains behind it. Fucking seven electrodes. If the berry is as powerful it would be a thing of wonderment, and one would want to know the reason why.

    Can you not fucking say one fucking thing thats logical? You fucking useless cunt. Go away. You are depressing me. You may have had kids, or one day have kids. Fucking polluting the human genome with your degeneracy.

    • RAIN WATER IS ALKALINE WATER. WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES YOU SO SO VERY RETARDED THAT YOU CANNOT GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING FAT HEAD, THAT ALKALINE WATER IS WATER … NOT BLEACH. YOU BELIEVE EVERY ANTI-SCIENTIFIC KNOW-NOTHING CUNT YOU FUCKING RUN ACROSS.

      • HMMMMM. I’M GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK THIS ONE. WATER FROM A STREAM IS TYPICALLY ALKALINE. WATER FOUND IN NATURAL SETTINGS TENDS TO BE ALKALINE, MOST OF THE TIME. BUT RAINWATER MAY BE A DIFFERENT PROPOSITION.

  21. Very impressed by Christopher Lloyd in the comments section. He was mystified by my comments, but seemed willing to engage. Unfortunately, your (YOUR!!!) A bloody BC, brings the conversation to an end, every time it gets a head of steam. I would gladly talk to someone like Christopher Lloyd for hours on end about these issues.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3869604.html#comments

    • Graeme

      I can no longer find links to the Stratfor emails and bin Laden not buried at sea. Do you still have a link?
      Seems all trace of the story from a couple of days ago has been wiped. Weird, huh?

  22. Stratfor’s going through a lot of trouble right now. People are calling them out as basically a bunch of government front-group suck-ups, rather than an honest broker of information. And wikileaks has leaked a lot of their stuff, but this itself carefully handpicked according to some. So its not surprising that a lot of their stuff could be wiped, because they will be in severe damage control right now.

    The whole Bin Laden raid story never had any credibility to it. Its an embarrassment that anyone would take it at face value.

    • I recall that three news sources carried the story. Now all wiped. Nothing discredited, just vanished, which arouses the interest more so. Perhaps you were right all along.

  23. That sort of thing happens a lot. Try other search engines, not google. Google is pretty much captured. Like the wikipedia. You may do better on another search engine.

    • SHIT FOR BRAINS. LIKE THESE PEOPLE NEVER DITHER ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT A STORY. WHAT A FUCKING MORON YOU ARE. CLEARLY THIS MAKES THINGS STILL MORE SUSPICIOUS.

      NOW OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO OSAMA HIT ON THAT DAY. OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING MORONIC TO EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT MUCH? FUCK YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

      • NO EVIDENCE EXISTS LINKING OSAMA WITH 9/11. NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE SURVIVED PAST 2002.

  24. Got a couple through on your (YOUR) A bloody BC:

    Graeme Bird :
    09 Mar 2012 9:43:14pm
    Absolutely right that unification doesn’t mean peace. It means the opposite, more collateral damage, and less freedom for Palestinians.

    Where has our understanding of our heritage of the Greek City States gone? Thats where freedom, reason, and good governance, in principle, if not in fact, came from.

    Always we ought to go for as many states as possible, and where that is not prudent, due to defense considerations, we must talk about cantonisation/radical federalism. Nothing good can come out of this “two-state solution mantra”. Start talking six or more states, and then we might see two or three of them with real liberty, and rapid wealth creation.

    Reply Alert moderator

  25. Graeme Bird :
    09 Mar 2012 9:47:52pm

    “It would be a profoundly positive step towards the prospects of peace if Hamas were to genuinely accept the Quartet’s principles, and a constructive re-unification would need to be on that basis. Unfortunately, Hamas has made it clear this has not been the case.”

    Forget about re-unification. And forget about Hamas. “Constructive re-unification” is an oxymoron in this scenario. Don’t even go there. We need competing Palestinian states. We need so many competing Palestinian micro-states, that if a small businessman doesn’t like his treatment from one state, he can pack up his tools of trade and move his act across the border. Only then can we hope to see good governance, followed by a thriving Palestinian community.

    Reply Alert moderator

  26. ““It would be a profoundly positive step towards the prospects of peace if Hamas were to genuinely accept the Quartet’s principles, and a constructive re-unification would need to be on that basis. Unfortunately, Hamas has made it clear this has not been the case.”

    Isn’t it all a big Boo Hoo? This is one reason why you need a Ron Paul type in the Presidency two terms every three. People have to know how to look after themselves. So Hamas wants Jerusalem to fall. There are probably some sickos somewhere that wish for Mount Everest to slide (references taken from a song to follow) and for the moon to be blown up. The idea is to simply accept reality, and let them come to you, as a result of your new strategy based around the acceptance of reality.

    Dealing with my girls, who currently are barely communicating with me, is a much much harder call, than Israels problem of dealing with Hamas. After all how much does Bibi care for the Hamas leadership? When all is said and done, does he really care about them? Is this some sort of quarrel whereby if they disagree, and will not talk, still Bibi thinks chiefly of their welfare?

    I don’t fucking THINKso. So the principle of dealing with Hamas, is pretty much the same as the principle of bringing wars to a quick close, (in the context of a peace that you can live with (in righteousness)):

    In the case of Hamas your intelligence must try and rank the 100 most influential people who are part of Hamas. They must produce another ranking of people who are most culpable in the killing of Israeli civilians (and Israeli soldiers already rendered helpless)…….

    They are looking for people in the intersecting set. And it is these people who must die the next time Israeli civilians are killed on the Israeli side of that fence.

    Dealing with Hamas is easier than dealing with the sheilas in your family. Don’t ever doubt it even for one minute.

  27. Just saw two terrific movies back-to-back. One was “Drive” which I immediately thought was a remake of “The Driver” which I actually saw at the movies when it came out. Lord knows how they let me into the cinema, and I can remember almost nothing about it.

    Anyhow the actor did a great job. He looked like your proverbial “Chip from the Tennis Club” A real American skippy. On the other hand his performance was pure Charles Bronson. It was just great stuff. I couldn’t have identified with the character more. Gosling has attention deficit disorder. The character does some amazing things in the movie. Nowhere do you feel like there is some sort of breach between character and action. Always you believe that he would readily do the things the movie has him doing.

    • Yeah, I can imagine you identifying with a borderline sociopath. Had any fantasies of stomping someone to death in an elevator, Bird?

      • He had reason to believe that the fellow with the firearm would kill him and the girl, and he himself was not armed. So it makes sense to me, although the last few stomps were somewhat over the top. The sort of cinematic excess you’d expect from some directors. Like David Lynch for example. So yeah that one scene shows him to be someone with a bit of a nutcase edge to him.

  28. http://www.ancientcanalbuilders.com/

  29. Bird
    I’m reading ‘tough guys don’t dance’ which I recall you recommended. This is the 2nd novel you’ve cited which I enjoyed (the other was Blood Meridian). Great picks

  30. Right. One of my other favorites is Gore Vidal’s Lincoln novel. I understand that you’ve read that amazing book as well.

  31. Before you finish reading “Tough Guys” you ought to get hold of a copy of Moby Dick, and compare the opening essay about people being drawn to the sea, with the “Tough Guys” opening essay about losing a wife, and trying to quit smoking. Compare the prose. The two stories are from the same geography. Or at least that is where the ship launches from.

  32. Hey Bird:

    I just shorted a little silver around here. Stop is at US$37.20.

    I’ll race you to $25.

    • I’d be very surprised if it went all the way down to $25. But if it did it would corroborate your ridiculous prediction about oil, to show that you are a brainless fool, who works only on inside information. Since you had absolutely no reasoning behind your idiotic oil prediction as well.

      Shit that was a moronic oil prediction you made.

      • Remind me of the oil prediction? DON’T PLAY SMART WITH ME YOU FUCKING WOP CUNT. IT WAS THE IDIOTIC OIL PROJECTION THAT YOU MADE.

      • NO LIES ON THIS SITE CAMBRIA. ITS BAD ENOUGH YOU ARE AFFLICTED WITH TERMINAL IDIOCY, BUT IF YOU HAVE THE DISHONESTY GENE THEN WHAT NEXT? CANCER FOR CHRISTMAS?

      • Didn’t you say that oil was gonna hit $200, then shortly afterwards it dropped to $40?

        SINCE YOU SEEM TO KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT IT “BIRDFLAPZ” WHY DON’T YOU TELL US WHAT PRECIPITATED THE DROP FROM $140 TO UNDER $40, AND WHAT THE MENTAL DEGENERATE CAMBRIA’S REASONING WAS, WHEN HE PREDICTED THAT IT WOULD FALL DOWN TO $60? A COMPLETELY IDIOTIC PREDICTION.

        I THOUGHT IT WOULD INITIALLY FALL BACK TO AROUND $90 OR SO BEFORE CLIMBING BACK HIGH AFTER A YEAR OR SO. A GOOD PREDICTION BASED UPON THE FACTS AS THEY WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME. CAMBRIA’S CALL WAS EITHER AN INSIDER DEAL, OR AN WHOLLY IRRATIONAL PIECE OF IDIOCY.

  33. I certainly would hope that it would go all the way down to $25 dollars. Since the last time it took a dive, I didn’t have the money to pick up any more of it. But if it went down to $25 in a months time, I could pick up a lot of it on the cheap.

  34. Check it out people. The knuckledhead, Joseph Cambria, an idiot, who is no good for any human purpose, a primitive wop, has just gotten inside information from the jackal pack, that there will be another anti-market take-down of the silver price.

    Note that this would be impossible without the naked short selling that he himself is involved in. That is to say, that the price of silver could not be hit like this without phantom supply. Phantom supply is something that has no place in capitalism. It is a crony artefact, like fractional reserve banking.

    • WELL FOOL. YOU TELL ME HOW YOU CAME UP WITH THAT IDIOTIC OIL PRICE PROJECTION? YOU NEVER EXPLAINED IT. IT WAS THE MOST MORONIC PROJECTION ANYONE HAS YET MADE EVER.

  35. Let no-one be in any doubt that Joseph Cambria is shorting silver naked. He has no silver to sell. Nor do the people, who have affected to lend him silver, with which to sell, have that silver. So its all a woppy scam.

  36. The best investment is not silver. The best investment has cash-flow to it. The best investment is a cash-flow producing asset, bought with the fractional reserve subsidy. That is to say with the subsidy that the big boys routinely get. The big corporates, the established real estate people. They all get the premium low interest rate subsidy. These guys don’t even need to find cash-flow positive opportunities to make a killing with these subsidies. However most of us do need to do this and we should. Silver is only a holding position, for when you have it together to find another cash-flow positive asset, that you can buy with the fractional reserve subsidy.

    Most people ought probably mirror their super investments, and those in their own name. You cannot use anything in your super account to cover a loan. But apparently you can use an asset in your own name to cover a loan on your super. Either way don’t accept high interest rates. Just do what you have to do to get (what is effectively) a subsidised rate. Unless you really need to be a super-tycoon, then my advice would be to bring whatever collateral you need to get a low rate, and don’t try and borrow more, at a higher rate. But in the end the subsidy can give you unlimited wealth. Because its a subsidy. Its a racket. American bankers are subsidised to a terrible degree. Something like 80,000 per US citizen, in near zero interest loans. Although no figure can really be floated, since you need a start and finish date. All figures will be controversial.

    An 80,000 dollar loan at near zero interest would certainly make a difference to a lot of people. But then if its a 4 person household, that would be a 320, 000 dollar near zero interest loan which would be life-changing. However the bankers are so fucking unproductive, that they have to keep holding out their dirty hands for more and more, lest they go broke.

    • So why are you investing in an income producing asset instead of putting all your meager wealth in the silver market?

      CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ YOU DUMB WOP?

      • Have I ever mentioned to people out there that Joseph Cambria is a genetic degenerate, and useless to all righteous human purpose? Well there you have it. I just explained very carefully why silver is not the best investment. I just explained very carefully what WAS the best investment ……. and still the loathsome pond-scum tries the above jive on.

      • “Have I ever mentioned to people out there that Joseph Cambria is a genetic degenerate, and useless to all righteous human purpose?”

        Yes, ad infinitum, we can never be reminded enough. And remember third parties, “its your money he’s managing.”

      • Yes, ad infinitum, we can never be reminded enough. And remember third parties, “its your money he’s managing.”

        Is this a new tactic of yours you fucking weak pussy Bird. I never said that you lying sack of shit.

      • Right. I thought I’d change it to help your persona. You were beginning to sound like a mean-spirited, and unrighteous white man.

  37. The best show on TV. Be patient with this instalment. It really works up to a crescendo of home truthz in minute 12-13.

  38. Here’s the link to the movie preview, that David Morgan talks about:

    http://www.silvercirclemovie.com/


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: