Why The Inverse Square “Law” For Gravity Is Only Partly Right And Only An Emergent Property.

Is it pretty clear why the reverse square law for gravity isn’t a law but a range limited emergent property? I think I’ve dealt with it elsewhere amongst a big meandering thread. But I may have to do a single thread going over that material because it may be a bit confusing to some people. In order to create a cult of personality over Einstein that had to have a parallel cult to do with Newton. And Maxwell for that matter. So they can kind of jump foot to foot.

We can skim over the basics.  Gravity is a force.  Its obviously a pull-force.  And its instantaneous, this implies constant contact.  We know that matter is all joined by an aether since light has wave-length. Wave requires a medium. That medium is called the aether.  So we already knew that matter maintained constant contact, since matter is visible.

Mother nature is parsimonious with its mechanisms so that this same aether is responsible for gravity.  This aether theory is very similar to Bill Gaedes rope theory.   The thing is though, that the smallest unit of aether, has to be very tiny in comparison to an individual proton, electron, and neutron.  Since no one strand of aether has any real effect on any of these.  That is to say when it comes to the very small stuff the pull force of the connections is vanishingly tiny.

If this is new to you, take a breath and absorb all this, because we have to dive into the implications of how gravity would work nucleon to nucleon and what the implications are when we scale up.

Just in passing lets mention the electric universe guys.  Their main insight is that electrical effects, deeply mysterious that they are,  scale really well.  They see the same things happening on the scale of light years, that they see on the scale of just a few centimetres in the lab.  I think they have made their case really well.  But gravity, that slight pull-force that the aether creates, almost by accident, DOESN’T scale real well.

I think aether scales real well.  In that I think a Birkeland current is acting like a giant strand of aether, even though its travelling through all these tiny strands of aether.  And when light travels through aether its as though the aether is “scaled up” to allow it to do so.

Electrical effects aren’t size dependents (or so the case is very well made) but gravitational effects are.  Because a small insect barely feels the force of gravity as he climbs up a wall.  But the fat man feels the force only too much as he walks up the stairs.

Now imagine that the nucleon to nucleon gravitational force drops off to the third power and not to the second.  Like an inverse cube law.  You are on a spherical earth but the surface is perfectly flat.   Every molecule on the planet and in the air above you is exerting a pull force on you, but some of them at different angle.

As you ascend to the clouds like Jesus does in the story,  think of how the force vectors from many of the molecules of earth are changing?  The higher you go,  the closer to straight down a lot of these force vectors are becoming.  Now do you see what I’m saying about the end result being an emergent property?   The force vectors are changing so the resultant force is becoming more effective.  Thus compensating in such a way as to make the drop-off in force less pronounced.

Anywhere above the point where hydrogen weather balloons tap out, the only things subject to gravity are orbiting.  That is to say moving roughly perpendicular to the earth.  I’m saying that this movement reduces the gravitational pull “a little bit.”  Some items will have an elliptical orbit.  All circular motion involves acceleration.  But elliptical orbits accelerate and decelerate a lot more than circular orbits.  I’m saying acceleration, unless the movement (not the acceleration itself) is towards the earth (rather than perpendicular to it)  breaks a lot of aether connections and therefore reduces the force of gravity “quite a bit.”   So I’m saying that the inverse square law isn’t really true, only appears to be true, and only appears to be true in a fairly limited range, and that its an emergent property for the reasons mentioned.

Just wanted to clear that one up.  Because the big thread on growing earth, gravity and mountain-building can be a bit hard to follow.

So if you were to plug this sort of thing into a computer model you are going to find out why orbits are so forgiving.  Why gravity is not clumpy and crash-happy.  Why mathematicians can barely solve a three-body problem but the galaxy solves a multi-billion body orbiting problem effortlessly.  Why NASA finds that rockets pick up anomalous energy when they slingshot them around planets.  Why spiral arm galaxies don’t act the way the mainstream wants them to, so they had to make up dark matter.  All that stuff is explained by the above view of gravity.  So I’ve really cracked it. These problems can be solved if you listen to dissident voices, stop putting down people as “crackpots’ and you dwell on these things long enough.

86 thoughts on “Why The Inverse Square “Law” For Gravity Is Only Partly Right And Only An Emergent Property.

  1. Here is Bannon effortlessly showing what a bunch of clowns the Democrats are. Of course he’s projecting Trump in the best of all possible lights. While he doesn’t need to lie to do so, he does need to leave a few things out that Ann Coulter might not. But then check at the change of tone 12.30 minutes in when the subject of Tulsi comes up. You want to hear stuff that you’ve never heard from a Trump booster before just scroll 12.30 in. The more time goes by the more its looking that Tulsi is really the only alternative to Trump this time around. Loveable as Andrew Yang is, you don’t want someone completely green going into this nest of Vipers alone.

    Like

  2. Yes you cannot get anything serious done using just one tool. So controlled burns aren’t everything. And yes the greens do get in the way because they start talking about the hydro-carbon industry when there is a serious job that needs to get done. The hydration of a continent, soil development, and fuel management, using more than just burning, won’t be achieved by this big distraction of greenies whining about the basic reality that we are dependent on hydrocarbons and will be for the next century.

    If you are claiming that Greens don’t get in the way, what have all your threads been about in relation to fire? They have been wall-to-wall a gnashing of teeth at that which you call “climate-change” using Orwellian language, when you mean high CO2 levels. The loss of good soil since WWII is more important to these high levels than even what the hydro-carbon industry has caused. Obviously things aren’t all good with CO2 release. CO2 release is a good thing and obviously so. But there is a simple fuel buildup problem that needs to be managed.

    Since when has something overwhelmingly terrific not had some minor bad thing attached to it? The world doesn’t work that way. So since when? Its really since greenies have decided to divert attention from fuel management to CO2 levels without even having the decency to talk about CO2-levels in plain English.

    Like

  3. Exactly. Its a total non-starter. When was the last time you flew over Australia and noticed how dry, and reddy brown it is? And how huge this continent is? If you were to foot-survey the same areas in 100 years time and its all black soil and green covering thats more carbon interred than the hydro-carbon industry has ever produced. Or potentially so. To spend money on energy destroying bullshit when we have a continents worth of land to re-hydrate. This is an automatic F-score for public policy sophistication.

    The real problems of floods, droughts and fires can all be dealt with using water retention landscapes and soil development. Even the non-problem of CO2 levels can be dealt with this way and with powerful efficiency. Soak water into the land and the carbon will follow. Since the water can support a huge amount of subsurface life.

    Time for our leftist academics to get together with our regrarian landscape experts (we are the leading country in this space) and really kick ass. Why don’t some of our academics take some time in the country to talk to people like Colin Seis, Bruce Maynard, Charles Massy and Darren Doherty? A coalition of this nature, if the focus was on the carbon implications of water retention landscapes, would sweep all opposition before it. The conservatives would just ride behind, hanging onto the coat-tails of such a lobby, like small children, not wanting to be left behind.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    One thing about CO2 alarmists. They do have the bushfire thing almost right. There is the obvious fuel buildup vector. But where CO2 may have a warming effect, its where the air is dry. Now mostly where the air is dry, this is where the air is cold, so the effect isn’t going to amount to much. But when that hot wind blows across the desert before hitting our Eastern woodlands. Thats quite another matter. Nonetheless the solution is not found in damaging our hydrocarbon industries or trying to pump CO2 into the sea.

    Like

  4. By the way there is something being totally overlooked. A wall of trees of certain species can in itself constitute a fire break. You can pick the right species and set up strategic fire breaks in this way, and that means you don’t necessarily have to clear cut a lot of territory. You’d think trees would be just more fuel. But the right trees can be selected to block out the radiation and stop the fire-front.

    Like

  5. “The company is proposing compressing CO2 and transporting it by pipe to underground reservoirs which held oil and gas in place for 85 million years.”

    Coal is a different matter. But the problem is that this is all nonsense. Oil and Gas are juvenile products of the earth. Were this not the case the oil and gas would never have gotten under so much pressure in the first place. And yes the conservation of energy and matter is a logical contradiction and completely impossible. Since were this the case there would be no energy or matter ever.

    The empirical proof is in every oil field in the world. They tap out pretty quickly but never completely. The pressure builds up again. Sure the oil depletes but it does so with a long tail. Not a bell curve as King Hubbert had suggested. Thats why the peak oil model was a good model but not quite right and the Professor’s intuition of plateau oil was a very good one.

    So the abandoned oil field builds up pressure again. Or alternatively the last nodding donkey never stops nodding. That oil field will not be abandoned forever. So this proposal is a big scam. Let us not subsidise rich slobs. Sooner or later the Chi-coms or some other deep pocket crowd will buy that field off Santos, and the money that was wasted in the first place, will be wasted even as CO2 alarmists would have it. Or the pressure will build up and the CO2 will be released by natural causes.

    The Amazon is no great shakes for carbon storage. In the tropics much if not most of the carbon is stored in the trees themselves. We can do better. In fact Australia is in a unique position to do so much better than anywhere else in the world. We have more resources to work with than the people of the Sahara. The carbon sequestration landscape par excellence is the Oak Savannah … But not necessarily based just around Oaks. Plenty of trees, plenty of grass, plenty of herbivores.

    But with water retention strategies we can do Savannah and Silvopasture so much better than before.

    Like

  6. Its greenwashing and outrageous rent-seeking. Santos knows that oil and gas fields eventually build up pressure again. And when you temporarily get down to the bottom of the barrel, as it were, you push stuff down there in order to recover more oil. So the Sauds at one point were putting in sea water to get at more oil. But that damages the ultimate pool of oil. So these oil companies have tried other things. CO2 being one of them. So really all these guys are doing is more oil recovery with a 40 year delay, and being welfare queens to boot.

    You won’t get these fellows challenging the inherent contradiction of the conservation of matter. You won’t get them challenging the creation myth of the big bang. But these welfare queen aspirants have the experience on the ground. They know that the wells slowly replenish themselves and so in this context we are looking at an outrageous grift.

    Did we really think that Santos would take a hit? No they want the 14 dollars per tonne subsidy, money for nothing, and they want to take the time and use the CO2 to build the pressure back in the wells. Thats where this fake science emphasis on 85 million years is coming from. At least if you believe coal was once wood, there is a possibility there, and a pretty good cover story. There is no good wood rotting cover story when it comes to oil and gas.

    Like

  7. This is my favourite show right now. At least when Matt Taibbi is on it. Like really intelligent, fairminded, knowledgeable guys get together and hang shit on real dirtbags who couldn’t deserve it more. Plus todays episode (actually from 2018) is one of the best histories of the bailout stealing spree so far.

    Its great to see people laughing at the expense of dirtbags who deserve it. But really there is at least a dozen guys that deserved to be hanging at the end of a rope over this one.

    Like

  8. People listening to the non-candidate idiocy of the American Democratic party, and then contrasting it with the excellence of the Presidents public speaking ….. Such people will wonder why I’m saying he ought to be a one term President. But people like Ann Coulter point out the difference between the Presidents rhetoric and his actions.

    And here is an explanation of just how large that gap is.

    Like

  9. I don’t want to make out that I’m a Matt Taibbi fanboy. I took a liking to him because he was a leading expert on the 2008 crash. And his full ground truth on the issue completely accorded with my “thread of doom” theorising on money and banking. Its like I had provided all this theorising and then he’s there sussing out what went on when the whole thing fell apart. But other than that I just recognised him as a very solid journalist.

    So while I’m not saying I’m this huge fanboy ….. Its worth following Matt around the internet. And I’ll tell you why. Matt always hangs out with a better class of lefty. And thats pure gold. Because we have so many poisonous lefties out there. But Matt helps us find the best lefties. And our job is to put together a coalition together with these guys. Not with the dumb left and the poisonous left. We want to meet these guys halfway.

    So anyway at the moment I’m following his act around, not just for his sakes. But because the sort of company he keeps is pretty pleasing.

    So what I’m saying to my old Catallaxy followers is …. find your favourite leftists. I used to like Chris Hitchens, Gore Vidal …. and a few others and now I follow a string of these guys. Your better leftists will enrich your thinking far more than hanging out with your bubble-bros over at catallaxy. You need to branch out a bit.

    I mean we are talking about a bunch of guys, 18 years on, who still think the Arab terrorist narrative holds water. Thats bubble-bro thinking. Some of the lefties I’m talking about probably know that story is bullshit but keep it pretty close to their chest. But these Catallaxy guys. They actually believe that shit.

    Like

  10. Its immoral to expect others to not climb their way out of poverty. And we need more job creation here as well. Job creation takes more producer goods. There’s no getting rid of hydrocarbons this century. We’ve just got to do our best to invest in energy efficiency, put some incentives in place for energy diversity (not too much or we create more energy sinks, and money pits. No direct subsidies), pump up coal royalties, and engage in agricultural reform of a sort that will bring all that carbon into our carbon poor agricultural ground. Skewing agriculture in a way that will lead to 3 metres of rich black soil everywhere is its own reward.

    No matter how we stomp our feet hydro-carbon usage will continue to grow for decades to come. If the grand bargain is to do with sky-high coal royalties then lets get started on some small projects involving molten salts and thorium right away. These things take decades. If we try and rush we’ll wind up with white elephants and cost blowouts everywhere. “Make haste slowly.”

    The only place where plant transpiration doesn’t lead to a clear and unambiguous air conditioning effect is in the tropics. The reason being that in the tropics the air is already infused with moisture and water vapour. Therefore a new parcel of water vapour rich air doesn’t necessarily rise up immediately. Everywhere else plant transpiration is the key to keeping the environment cool. I don’t stress over global warming as a whole because the unrigged data doesn’t show it. But these deserts are quite a different matter. These hot winds coming across the desert are often dry winds and so its reasonable to assume that the CO2 adds to catastrophes related to hot dry air. So we ought to consider deserts as a big threat. A serious problem to be fixed.

    Supposing the sun got 10% hotter for a few decades. If our water retention features were in place and our former deserts were greened we would pull through. But with the deserts sitting there we would be in deep trouble. The hot dry winds would wind up burning everything off that they reached. You can look at it that the CO2 isn’t the threat. But the deserts are the threat.

    Like

  11. The thing about the Andrew Yang plan is that as dangerous fiscally and economically as the implementation would be, it could not be as much of a disaster as what the bank bailouts were. But then you cannot judge it on that basis, since thats like being asked where you want the needles? Eyeballs or testicles?

    But here is the thing. Yes it will be a big blow to economic health, because the deficit spending would inevitably blow out before the cuts came through. But on the other hand, imagine how much more quickly you could phase to a Georgist tax if you had the Yang payments in place? The first step is to apply the Georgist taxes to corporations, but not to individuals. Then you apply the Georgist tax to very large land holders, now that the land is in individual hands only. But you do so with a massive threshold. Then you pull down the threshold.

    What I’m saying is that after the Yang program the Georgist program need only take about 30 years. Whereas I’d be looking at 150 years without it.

    Maybe its worth it to take one more really big economic punch in the guts if it makes subsequent reform so much less painful?

    Thats a real question mark here. I’m not taking a strong position on this one either way.

    The point I’m making here is that once you know how fantastically awesome society can be, then you find out how hard the phase in is and its a letdown. The phase in is so hard, its just so hard, its so hard. So damn hard to get to that shining city on a hill. The Yang plan could be a way of taking one big step backward but then smooth sailing afterward. I don’t know. You see me talking like I always know. But this time I don’t know.

    But I’d be very glad if Yang showed up in the White House with David Stockman, Joe Salerno and a coterie of the smartest Georgists there. But the two main heavies saying that they don’t agree with the policy but they will make it work.

    Like

  12. Look we know that thorium nuclear is basically unlimited energy for thousands of years. With molten salts its very safe but we have a corrosion problem to overcome. When you have technical problems like this its just a time factor. If you go about it slowly and methodically you will get it right and then thats no worries for cheap energy for as far as the eye can see.

    So what’s the problem? The problem is you leftists take your ideas pretty much straight from the oligarchy. They want to deny us energy and keep us enslaved? They have you boys as the third stage goose-steppers. You don’t think. When you do you snap back into line very quickly. I’ve seen Homer almost look like he was thinking and listening …. and then you see that snap-back and you wonder “what the fuck just happened?”

    Like

  13. Patrick Little on his naming the Jew tour. Getting his right to free speech violated by a Jew with his face obscured. Consider that he is sticking up for the memory of a child actress that was drugged and sodomised, occasioning death, by Hollywood bigshots. Plus we have to face facts. There is a big problem, as we have seen with the me-too-movement, of Jews abusing our girls in various ways.

    Like

  14. The Ruiz-Joshua fight. My prediction from the start was that Anthony Joshua should fight Ruiz lighter. He needs to be lighter to be more mobile so that it gets closer to the Ali-Cleveland Williams fight of 1966. Williams couldn’t touch Ali because of Ali’s capacity to move. Ruiz can only really move forward fairly slowly or at his weight he will burn up too much energy. So with Joshua’s great reach, he ought to be able to stay untouchable. A lighter Joshua that is.

    But my idea was that there wasn’t enough time to prepare to beat Ruiz. Yet the news coming from Joshua’s camp is that he is down in weight? But is he down in weight meaning that he’ll be fitter and more mobile? Or is he down in weight meaning he will be weak, with not enough time to get back his strength?

    In the lower divisions if a fighter loses a great deal of weight to make the division, he’s the one at the disadvantage. But that ought not apply to the heavyweight. So hard to pick. I suppose I have to go with my original judgement that there wasn’t enough time for Joshua to get ready. But then I don’t know. He’s lost some of that vanity muscle he was carrying. So part of me wants to go with the other original judgement that Joshua can beat Ruiz if he comes in evasive at a lower weight.

    I really cannot pick it. Going to be exciting. If Joshua had until next March I’d be going with him. But I cannot pick it. People don’t recognise as much that Ruiz is the more experienced fighter. Officially he’s only had one loss. A split decision by New Zealand judges, fighting a New Zealander in New Zealand. So he’s going to see himself as fundamentally unbeaten. If I had to put money down it would be on Ruiz. But if Joshua shows up in fabulous shape, is lighter, and good at not being cut off in the corners, its going to be hard for Ruiz to get to him. Could easily end up with a points victory to Joshua if he can hang in there until the end.

    Like

  15. 5 days a fortnight at minimum wage. Thats what we need for unemployed people like myself. Building check dams and other water retention features to rehydrate the land. And of course the fuel control that I’ve mentioned before. We have more to work with then the poorer Africans. Yet they are making a fist of this undertaking and I don’t think we are for the most part.

    My hats off to these Ethiopians. But what has gone wrong with us here in Australia? Why can we not produce water rich landscapes followed by carbon rich soils? Why instead are we standing around whining about the hydro-carbon industry, if carbon internment is what is wanted? If water retention landscapes, and carbon-rich soil development, is the solution to floods, droughts, and fires, then what is all this dysfunctional whining about?

    We might have to consider that the Ethiopian gene pool has been improved by extreme stress. And that the white rich leftist gene pool may have become fundamentally degenerate.

    Like

  16. Mr Phiri of Zimbabwe showing us how to infiltrate water into a farm. But this is a little bit too conceptual to an Australian trace gas hysteric; To figure out that putting water into the land is the best way to have the carbon follow that water. Thats just a bit tricky. Why not start up some Jew-dominated carbon trading scheme instead? Nice for the tribe. But not so good for the land and everyone else.

    Like

  17. Kim Iverson is pretty good value. She’s got it absolutely right about the three serious candidates, some permutation of which could beat Donald Trump. Good pick. Tulsi will have to be one of the candidates in order to overcome the Neocon menace. But any combination involving one of the other two would be deeply satisfying. At least to me.

    Like

  18. After the last Andy-Anthony fight I was saying that Joshua should be fighting in the 230’s. He’s taken the right approach. Shed a lot of the vanity muscle. But its like I said at the time, he really needed more time. The idea is to try and make it like the Mayweather-Manny fight. Where it just took Manny too much energy to get to where he could hurt Mayweather. You’d see him almost get there, maybe even hurt Mayweather a bit. But it was too exhausting to do so.

    Joshua went right in with Ruiz the last time. This time he has to stay out of his way for maybe six rounds. Because those Ruiz hooks where he gets his torso behind the punch. They are just too devastating.

    Like

  19. Taleb fleshing out his ideas on localism. Very important issue. The first thing is to eliminate outside influence on ones politicians. Malcolm Turnbull was the ultimate cuckoo baby in the nest. Totally disloyal to us.

    Like

  20. Scroll 4.10 in. Most recent footage. Joshua on the tennis court. Finally looking positive. Like faster than before as if the big volume fitness work is over and now the speed is returning, but better than ever. Without excess muscle slowing him down. Only the most recent footage looks good to me. Like he’s got a good peak coming on after building up that endurance capacity. In all other footage but the most recent he’s had a sluggish look to him. But thats to be expected given the immense amount of volume he would have needed in order to be able to carry a strategy off that could beat Ruiz.

    Like

  21. Sacha Baron Cohen loses all credibility talking at the ADL. What a complete twat. A complete indictment on his whole life. We put up with his anti-social behaviour on the basis of freedom of speech and the special license we give to humour. He could have, and maybe should have been beaten up a string of times that are now on film. But we let it go and laugh a lot but now the laughter has died. He wants only that sort of license for himself and other Jews. Its not for the rest of us. What a complete cunt he turned out to be. I thought he might have been one of the good guys because he allegedly reached into his own pocket for humanitarian help in Syria.

    This attitude casts such a bad light on anything he’s done. We can now see it was about Jewish racism from the start. We laughed and laughed and laughed but we didn’t realise we were laughing at an inbred racist.

    Like

  22. The Lamestream in cosmology thinks they have found the smallest black hole ever. Only three and a half times more massive than our sun and with a 12 mile event horizon. Of course this is all bullshit and I’ll tell you what is really going on.

    Was this alleged 12 mile event horizon calculated or measured? What is really going on here is that moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars. The stars never lose their oceans. Except in this rare situation. There is no such thing as a black hole. But this object that she is talking about has for some reason lost its atmosphere and ocean, leaving a gigantic rocky planet. Thats all thats going on here. No hanky panky. No voodoo. Probably best to skip maybe the first 4.30 of it.

    Like

  23. Here is the original of the speech for the new nominee as the galaxies biggest douche-bag. His humour can never be all that funny again, knowing that its coming from such a racist Jew.

    But calming down a bit it could be a stealth criticism of Jewish institutions. If thats what he is about then much can be forgiven.

    Like

  24. The Stiglitz take is fairly useless. But the general subject is a good one. When I studied finance in 1984 and 1985 we had this idea that we would use like maybe a dozen or more metrics to try and get a first draft take on how a company was doing. And back then this information was actually good stuff to know insofar as valuing a company was concerned. Perhaps nowadays it might now not matter since the markets are so hopelessly rigged and corrupted. But the point is there was no “one metric fallacy.”

    If I had two metrics for deciding how well a company was doing it would be return on shareholder equity and return on total assets. And to me the return on total assets is a better measure of the social value of the job the company is doing. Most investors would go with return on shareholder equity most of the time. But the point is there is no “one true measure.”

    For example in month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter demand management considerations GROSS DOMESTIC REVENUE is a much better theoretical measure. Yet neither our treasury, nor our Reserve Bank, nor our department of statistics will so much as compile these figures. Also we choose one inflation figure. We should probably have three. Because the current one underestimates inflation and thereby gives us a rosier picture and all these politicians pat themselves on the back. The Americans are much worse.

    Then there are figures which would net out the financial sector or the public sector or both. Or parts of the public sector perhaps excluding infrastructure and welfare. Because there are lots of spending that should be considered overhead. So you might have an overhead component for public spending (quite a bit of it) and an overhead component for finance (virtually all of it) and by taking these out and having maybe a dozen metrics we would get a clearer picture of how well we were doing.

    Like

  25. I think we are seeing the confidence rising after coming out of a lot of the high-volume work. Maybe there is nice peak starting to happen. Tough gig coming up. This fellows vanity muscle used to rub me the wrong way. I think he’s on the right track now. Win or lose December 6, I think he’s on the way to being a much better fighter. He’s not going anywhere.

    I haven’t seen footage of him doing much torso work. Thats a bit of a problem to me. But one thing that caught my eye. He was actually dong sparring practice with a heart monitor. I’d never seen that before. Brilliant. Just what the doctor ordered. Forcing to keep the work rate more moderate so you can get more volume, more aerobic conditioning, and ultimately more sparring in.

    I like it. Too hard to pick this next fight. But I like the direction Anthony has taken now. He’s the right height. A slimmer Anthony could be the right everything. I think he’s going to get right up the top with the others and stay there for a few years. He could very well end up the best fighter of all of them.

    Like

  26. “Birdy, you and your bizarre conspiracy theories have absolutely no cred in this argument. ”

    No thats just a logic fail on your part. An aversion to conspiracy is a mental disorder or just professional diplomacy. Your credibility is shot because you show this mental disorder even though you are here anonymously. I should probably conceal my superior understanding, given that I need a job, but thats neither here nor there.

    Unless of course you have your explanation for building seven? No you don’t have an non-conspiracy explanation for 9/11 and your Arab blood libel cannot explain building 7. The facts are very clear for the global warming fraud. The figures are rigged. The known unrigged figures cannot be used to make the case. The deserts and soil loss are the real problem. A very serious problem too. Fixing the deserts and building the soil solves all climate problems, real or imagined.

    Like

  27. Lunatic Jew with top security clearance. Who are his Israeli handlers? Are his movements being monitored? Will he be forced to testify under oath? Why do we put up with these people again and again and again?

    Like

  28. The Saud family and the founder of Wahabi Islam are thought to be Jews. And they really give the game away with their cruelty in Yemen and their lock-step co-operation with Israeli foreign policy. Islam can be warlike. But they don’t have a track record of mindless slaughter of civilians. Nor could they get away with their behaviour without total Jew media backing.

    Like

  29. “Weve been this way before but this time it was just so devastated with the ever present smell of roadkill as a reminder of the desperate plight of stock and wildlife. And now it is worse, with fire leading the desertification of country reaching over the heavily forested ranges and onto the once lush coast. The scale of drought and fire has been monumental.”

    Right. So its a disaster and very strong measures must be taken. Rehydrating the land with swales, check dams, ponds, dams, terracing. All those kind of land rehydrating strategies that the Ethiopians (or example) are using. That somehow they can do but we cannot……… And year round fuel control.

    So are we going to fix the problem or just close down another coal station? You see there is a scintilla of truth to what the right wingers are saying when they blame Greenies for inaction. Do Greenies want to take action? Or just bitch and moan about the hydro-carbon industry? I am not hearing a call for rational action. All I’m hearing, in the face of serious problems, problems that go right back to soil loss from modern agriculture …. Nothing actually. Mostly crickets. But there is a kind of background assumption towards destroying hydrocarbon energy that can barely be voiced. Where is the call for action? I mean rational action that will fix the problem with some despatch?

    If you are sneering at real solutions than surely Barnaby and the others were quite correct? We are getting no serious support for anything that can actually work in the wake of this catastrophe.

    Its like real solutions are a social faux pas. Like someone made a bad smell in mixed company. Like you are all embarrassed to take real action. Or to advocate real action. You all want to moan about the problem but you are all against any solution. Thats what I’m getting.

    Like

  30. How does Mercury’s orbit prove General Relativity?” Ridiculous. That doesn’t follow in logic even a little bit. Try science and forget about the cult of personality or Jewish propaganda. Moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars. What the orbit of Mercury proves is that the sun never lost its oceans. Below the suns thick atmosphere lies the giant solar ocean, and at the bottom of the ocean is the planet. What makes this possible is the latent energy of the phase change of water. Which is kind of magical where we are, but works even better under strong pressures.

    Forget that fools ridiculous tests. They are logic fails. We know I’m right because it also explains the rotation speeds on the photosphere, and the incredible instability we see on the sun. The instability originates in water phase-change explosions.

    Like

  31. There is no such thing as a black hole. Moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars. At any stage they can explode. But if they survive after trillions of years they will get so big that the only thing they can emit will be radio waves all over and a superluminal proton wind from out of their poles. Gravity is a pull force and therefore will be weak once the rope (aether) runs out. So the idea that materials can be compressed in the way suggested is impossible and not verified by materials science. There is only one of these objects per galaxy since they are electrically incompatible with a competitor. So they will reject a competitor as a Quasar, and the Quasar will go off to form a new galaxy.

    Like

  32. He had to get rid of the vanity muscle. Most of the heavyweights are way too heavy. This is a gruelling sport. You spa even at half pace, and even if you are pretty fit, you find yourself gasping for air. Ali could float around the ring at a svelte 97 kilos. At 102 kilos he was flat-footed. Its scaled up now because of access to supplements. But still the optimal size is probably 6 5 and in the 230’s. By my reckoning Lennox Lewis had it about right for the modern era.

    So Joshua has gone down exactly the right road. Personally I don’t think he has had enough time. If it was next March I’d say he could probably win on points. Because a new and far more evasive style has to come with the weight loss. Its got to be fully integrated and polished. So he’s on the right track now and when his new path is fully developed he won’t feel the need to duck Wilder or Fury. But is it enough time to have lost the weight, still be strong, and have altered his game?

    Obviously he’s still going to be too big to float around like 60’s Ali. But I think these bigger guys have a lot to learn from someone like Lomachenko. You can stay flat-footed and still work the angles more. But all these guys have been coming in too big. Pretty much all of them Wilder excepted.

    Like

  33. Any unbiased science community would agree with the thrust of of Randall’s take on things. Here he sees a pattern in extinction events and near extinction events. Which is an interesting take I’ve not seen before.

    Like

  34. Stars will never, or almost never, collide in that circumstance. Not because of the tendentiously reasoned statistical probability. But simply because gravity doesn’t conform to heritage formulae and if it did gravity would be clumpy and crash-happy. One large object (lets say the moon or larger) and one small object want to amalgamate. Two large objects want to orbit. Forgetting the idiotic big bang creation myth, some contemplation will tell you that this property of gravity was necessary for any meaningful reality to get off the ground.

    The analogy isn’t that great. Think of all the planets also. And think that everything is moving in curves. So it isn’t one cylinder. Its billions of cylinders. Definitely if gravity didn’t work as I suggest there would be collisions galore. Even if they were only planet-star collisions for the most part. But none of this will happen because gravity doesn’t work that way. What will happen instead is hundreds of years of orbits reworking themselves.

    The probabilities she is calculating is on the basis that gravitational objects DON’T attract each other. She is talking as if there movement was not co-dependent. She is also talking as if all stars weren’t moving simultaneously. So the probabilities don’t mean anything and amount to a series of excuses as to why collisions are vanishingly rare and usually made up out of clean cloth by the science mafia. Most analogies are made in this form as a series of excuses why the mainstream doesn’t need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to gravity.

    The simplifying assumptions amount to freezing the movement of stars prior to merger, and at the same time taking away the force of attraction between these stars. These simplifying assumptions aren’t the fault of Dr Becky. But have been transmitted to her after decades of excuse-making for our effective moratorium on sane gravity research.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s