Location And Description Of Pristine Matter And Energy Production

Liquids and gasses, in the presence of gravity, separate out into layers based on molecular weight.  Solids present some complexity to the picture.  Though they can act a bit like slow-motion liquids in some cases.  Generally speaking you expect the solids to arrange themselves getting more dense as you go further down.  But there is a lack of mobility which complicates matters.  The general principle, with some exceptions, is that gravity determines the direction of the density of materials. If you know which way is up and which way is down the more dense materials will tend to be in the direction of DOWN.

Now complicating this analysis,  when it comes to gasses in the atmosphere; there is a layer where gasses commonly found in air are said to be well-mixed.  Interestingly this layer is very hard to find out about in detail, thanks to the global warming fraud.   Lately they have said that this “homosphere” reaches to about 70 kilometres above sea level.  Thats not always been the story.  But you cannot get them to analyse for you how the heavier gasses drop off gradually with each few kilometres. They are deliberately hiding the data.  So for example, if you ask a global warming fraudster about the drop-off in CO2 parts per million,  for each kilometre in altitude you will gain, all you will get is Jews and lock-step leftists looking for a Gotcha moment ….. “Ho ho you must be just about to die through Argon gas suffocation …. Tee hee hee.” All that money spent on the global warming racket has lead to counter-productive results and hiding of the data.

There can be little doubt that the concentration of the heavier gasses systematically reduces as the altitude goes up.  If this were not the case we would have that data.  Take that into consideration if you are thinking about using ice core data for your past CO2 measurements.  Since the ice itself is formed from packed snow, and the snow develops high in the troposphere.  Which is why political considerations have lead to a knowledge deficit when it comes to finding out about how the homospheres constituent parts morph in line with altitude.

Above the homosphere they are calling it the heterosphere.  The heterosphere is where the gasses line up in accordance to their molecular weight.   At least every gas that is still a gas at the appropriate temperatures, and those gasses lighter than well-mixed air. In this regards water vapour isn’t part of the heterosphere.  Water vapour is much lighter than air, but at the temperatures of the upper troposphere, all water vapour must form into liquid or solid prior to getting to the altitudes we are talking about. Methane is lighter than well-mixed air. But ultra-violet light will react with methane in order to turn this CH4 into CO2 and H2O …. prior to this methane accumulating its own layer in the heterosphere.

My claim had been that the final  gas layers, in these segregated layers of the heterosphere,  were not helium than hydrogen.  I said that above the layer of hydrogen  there ought to be a proton layer, and above that an electron layer.  Just lately I found for the first time they are claiming there to be a “protonosphere.”   Maybe this claim has been around for a long time but I missed it when I was studying the global warming racket between 2005-2008.  Probably the first Van Allen belt will be top-heavy in protons and the second may likely be top-heavy in electrons.  Though it can be hard to get information on this sort of thing.  And that is not exactly how they are describing and defining this protonosphere.

Lets note in passing the baffling stupidity of mainstream science.  Who are always looking at stars and claiming that the universe is mostly hydrogen, and in plasma form at that.  The dumb bastards are looking at the outer layers of the stars that they can see and simply assuming that these outer ‘lifting gasses’ are representative of the massive object as a whole.  Stupidity of that level is not about a general lack of brain power.  It proves the controlled nature of the academy.

Up And Down

We need to know which way is up and which way is down.  Which seems like a frivolous idea but its not, because it tells us how materials will be layered. Materials will be layered in the direction as described above once we know which way is up.

Which Way Is Up? Not such a bad song.  Not such a bad band. Damn fine-looking women.  Not such a stupid question. 

The region in the deep earth where the direction of UP and DOWN reverses can be determined by way of locating where the seismic waves bend one way and then the other. The same principle as how light bends when it travels between air and water.  I believe the mainstream sees the veering of the seismic waves and yet they refuse to suffer the implications. 

Lighter materials are upward and more dense materials are downward, subject to a bunch of caveats already discussed, but more importantly;  subject to the determination of which way is up and which way is down.

Under Jan’s own analysis its going too far to call our earth “Hollow” … There are a lot of crazies involved in this ‘hollow earth’ business but Jan’s analysis is solid. 

The best analysis in the video is around about the 20-30 minute region.  This is where Jan applies the principles of seismology in a logical fashion and shows that the mainstream is evading some possibilities.  The rest of the video is mainly talking about how Jan has explored all angles.  But the seismic investigation is the really important stuff.

Most other “hollow earth” people are cranks. Brookes Agnew is both impressive and particularly full of shit. I judge him to be an agent of some sort. But Jan’s analysis ought to be taken very seriously. I think Jan Lamprecht’s analysis is path-breaking. 

So supposing there is an empty region at the centre of the earth.  And this region has a radius of about 760 miles.  If you are dead centre of this empty void, every direction from where you are is down and you are weightless.   So supposing you journeyed DOWN to the centre of the earth.  When you got there you would find yourself at the highest point. But well BEFORE you got to that point, you will have noticed that UP and DOWN had reversed.

At the centre of the earth,  gravitational forces are the same in all directions. So for practical purposes there is no gravity. The centre of the earth is the point within the earth,  where all gravity cancels.    You are at the highest point you can be at, at the centre of the earth.  For you every direction is DOWN.  Down is in the direction of the earths surface.  Isn’t that kind of bizzare? And isn’t it funny that you had to hear this from me? The level of control exercised over science is pretty much total.

The dispute comes at the inner core level.  The mainstream thinks this is a solid inner core of iron and nickel. They simply do not have the logic or the data to be making bogus claims of this nature.  Since the claim of a nickel and iron core is so ‘out there’, arbitrary, crazy,  and unbacked ……..  we must therefore assume that this monolithic claim is hiding something the oligarchy don’t want us to know.  This is a stupid claim. This claim is in violation of any understanding of epistemology.  You cannot keep secrets by way of secrecy.  Secrets are kept by way of bogus information injected into the situation to hide the truth. 

The dispute comes at the inner core level.  The mainstream thinks this is a solid inner core of iron and nickel.  But an analysis of gravity tells us that this inner core is where the liquid runs out and the gasses start.  The gasses start where the liquid ends.  This is the inner atmosphere.  The inner atmosphere gets increasingly rarified,  until there is purest space at the very centre. 

For us right now DOWN is in the direction of the earths centre.  Now supposing you are standing on solid ground, at the edge of the void at the centre of the earth? Now UP is towards the earth centre.  Down is towards the earths surface.  And there is positive gravity, because the material beneath your feet is able to pull on you to a greater degree than all the material at the other end of that void.   Well what has happened here?  You see there comes a point as you are travelling to the centre of the earth where UP and DOWN are reversed.  With the reversal of UP and DOWN comes the reversal of the density of materials.  For this reason we know that there is indeed a hollow region at the centre of the earth.  We have the data from the seismic waves.  Where the mainstream says we have a solid inner core, thats where the hollow part starts as I think I have proven.  Lets not have second thoughts about this since the seismic data is there.   Plus the seismic data shows where the density of materials reverses since going from higher to lower density affects the way the seismic waves bend.

Where the mainstream has matters correct is the location of where the liquid outer core begins and ends. 

Seismic data very decisively tells us where the liquid begins and ends, as represented here by the yellow region.  The rest of the model is the usual arbitrary bullshit. 

Heat Rises

Kids are or used to be marked down for making the claim that “heat rises.” But actually this is perfectly fine shorthand and its certainly valid for liquids and gasses.  Where liquids and gasses are concerned, the tendency for most of the thermal energy is to go UP rather than DOWN.  So indirectly or directly gravity determines the direction of where most of any extra thermal energy being produced, is likely to flow too.

That the photosphere of our sun is almost 6000 degrees Celsius, has in no way prevented our sun from retaining its gigantic oceans. There are two reasons for this. 1. The refrigeration effect of the phase change of water.  One of the most miraculous and puzzling effects in all of science.  (You would think this effect was pure magic if you didn’t know better) and 2 …. “Heat rises.”  Which means the thermal energy being produced, chiefly between the corona and the photosphere, has to fight every inch to make its way down to the water.  To be sure it gets there.  Or we wouldn’t have coronal mass ejections and other such violent behaviour.  But its tough work, every joule and every inch. 

Now see how the suns inner ocean drives the rotation of the suns outer atmosphere in accordance with latitude?  The diagram above shows this very clearly. The rotation pattern is due to the inner ocean spinning faster than the outer atmosphere, and the inner ocean being flatter (more oblate) then the sun appears to be at the photosphere.  Total proof of an inner ocean since no other solution is possible.  This inner, and more oblate oceanic sun, also explains the alleged anomalies in the rotation of Mercury around the sun.  Doesn’t really matter what any Jew wants to say about it.  Not everything the Jew tells you is the truth.  

So in order to suss out where the thermal energy will tend to migrate to you need to know which way is up.  As we have seen, when you are at the centre of the earth, everywhere is down.  The thermal energy wants to migrate to where you are.  Or at least until the gasses run out.  Supposing you are on earth? If there is a bonfire burning on a platform above your head,  where you are not shielded from the platform itself, you could get very hot.  But if you are above the fire, thats where most, but not all, of the thermal energy is headed.  This will become important later when we discover that the Sun never lost its oceans. Of course should we want to pull this apart to a greater degree we would split up thermal energy migration into convection, conduction and radiation.  But still the generalisation that “heat rises” is good enough in many situations.

Layered atmosphere of the sun.

The same system will apply to the sun as it does to the heterosphere above the earth.  On the sun the top of the hydrogen layer is almost 6000 degrees Celsius and the temperatures will drop below that.  But any element or molecule that is a gas at the appropriate temperature will have its own layer where it is predominant, in accordance to its molecular weight.  Below the hydrogen plasma layer is the hydrogen gas layer.  Below that the helium layer and so forth.  The temperature drop-off is not known exactly.  Although my understanding is that when you can see through the photosphere, because of the sun spots, the sun spots are maybe 1400 degrees cooler than the photosphere.  Maybe someone else could be able to work out which gasses were included in the layers beneath the photosphere.  But its a tough gig because you need to know what molecule will be a gas at the right temperature and pressure so you would need to know that temperature and pressure.

I don’t know how the aether converts pure random flux into useable energy.

I cannot tell you HOW.  I can only tell you WHERE. 

Pristine Energy Until Proven Otherwise.

The aether takes pure random flux and transmutes this into energy.  Don’t ask me how this is done.  If you want to estimate when this capacity first evolved, try a trillion to the power of a trillion years ago as your first starting point.  I don’t know how this is done and am not going to presume to delve down into that level of miniaturisation.  But once we know that neither energy nor matter is conserved, it follows that energy and matter must be generated somewhere and somehow.  After confessing to the reality that I don’t know how its done, in the case of pristine energy, I can at least tell you WHERE this is happening.   We have already dealt with one place where pristine energy is being created.  This is because we now know that the orbits of two or more major gravitational bodies are energy positive.  So pristine energy comes into the universe via orbits.  Orbits of two or more bodies as large as our moon or larger.

Charge Separation Indirectly Due To Gravity. 

Here we have the other, or the second cause of pristine energy injected into the universe.  Once you get that heterospheric pattern you wind up getting the layers; Helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons.   Right at the very edge of that lineup you will have charge separation.  Once you get charge separation you will have continuous charge buildup.  Since the aether is not a very good conductor you then get resistance.  With resistance you get the generation of thermal energy.  Both capacitance buildup and the consequent heat buildup are examples of new energy injected into the universe.  If it isn’t coming from there you would have to ask where it is coming from.

Notice how this version of how things happen explains what we see.  What is the mainstream answer to why we have a corona where the temperature gets as high as 2 million degrees and falls in temperature towards the photosphere?  A real ‘dog ate my homework story.’  Now what is going on with the photosphere? Well you see gasses don’t conduct electricity very well.  But ions do.  So the photosphere represents that interaction between the proton layer and the hydrogen layer.  The electrical energy is now circulating around and around on the hydrogen layer trying to penetrate into the sun, but only being able to do so gradually.  The result is a kind of eternal ball lightning.

The earth has an inner sun. Tiny, but very powerful. 

The earths inner sun blazes away, primarily giving off gamma ray light. Gamma rays in a vacuum produces new matter in the form of pair production (an electron and a positron).  These pristine particle rain down on all the elements arranged in gaseous bands, since the temperature is hot enough to make every element a gas.  The voltage difference, the high electrical pressure, makes fusion in this situation easy and painless.  The heavier elements are in the lower gaseous bands.  The high pressures involved can force materials downwards (ie towards the earths surface, and towards the pinch point where density is greatest and where up and down reverse.)  Heavier elements are forced downward by lighter elements and so are given a kind of ‘head start.’   So where up and down are reversed there is still the possibility of some heavier elements making it to the earths crust, being driven by the lighter ones, often still as gasses or as molten liquids.  Were it not a topsy turvy situation like this,  all heavy stuff would be deep and lighter stuff would be shallow. 

This electrical energy is spread over the entire photosphere of the sun.  What do you imagine would happen if the same sort of layering and charge separation could lead to a more focused electrical energy? You would get a dense plasma focus of some sort.  The most intense electrical pressure and heat leading to a tiny gamma ray sun.  Very exciting stuff right?  For that we want to go back to the centre of the earth.  We will see that there is a spontaneous generation of a tiny gamma ray sun.  Not made of hardly anything at all.  Simply a ball permanent gamma ray lightning.

So starting from where the outer liquid core ends we get an “atmosphere” of sorts but it will be many types of elements and compounds in gas form because of the high heat.  Eventually they will separate into distinct layers that may approximate the periodic table.  But just as in the upper layers of the earth and the sun,  the layers will eventually wind up being helium, then hydrogen, then protons then electrons then pure space.

Each layer will trace out the outline of increasingly small spheres.  When we get to the proton and electron separation, that will amount to the same sort of charge separation as between the corona and the photosphere.  But now the electrical energy will be hyper-focused.  Thats why the end result will be a tiny gamma ray sun.   As opposed to on the sun, where the result of the charge separation is instead permanent lightning producing light of a sort that approximates “black body” radiation at less than 6000 degrees celsius.  The inner sun is much more focused,  very small, and much if not most of the light will be gamma radiation.

Gamma radiation through a vacuum is what leads to pair production; the only known type of new matter creation.

Now consider what this mechanism means for the growth of planets? You would need to be quite a large planet to get this process going to any great degree.  Once this mechanism starts going it will keep going until the planet becomes a star, then becomes a bigger star, and it won’t stop until the body explodes for some reason or other.

But it will mean that there is a point where the growth of the planet is at its highest proportionately.  We must be close to that place now.  At 18-22mm radius increase per year, thats really strong growth.  Contrast this to the sun.

The sun will be creating vastly more new matter every year than we are.  But not so on a proportionate basis.  There has to be some sort of diminishing returns to this inner sun new matter creation process.   We have some verification of this.  NASA says that the orbit of the earth and the sun is increasing in diameter 15cm per year.  Only 15cm per year?  As we have seen elsewhere orbits of large bodies tend to grow.  We have to assume that the orbits grow faster than the bodies themselves.  So this implies that the suns growth is quite modest on a proportional level compared to the earths.

NASA only really lets out interesting information early on and by accident.

They have said that measured from the centre of the sun, to the centre of the earth, our orbit is growing 15cm per year.  Of course they have no explanation for this and they probably wished they never let this information slip.

Others who investigated these matters have assumed exponential growth in bodies. Because its very clear that the earth hasn’t been growing at anything like this rapid pace for most of its history.  But this was never likely to be the case that growth would always be exponential.  Because in physics we are talking about mechanisms.  And so you expect these mechanisms to hit a sweet spot where its working very well.  Then get less and less effective proportionately as the body grows.  If I’m right large stars are very ancient.  Much older than what the mainstream is saying is the age of the universe.

One more thing to consider.  The very centre of the earth will have much higher temperatures than what the mainstream suggests.  But since that area is largely a void, since up and down are reversed, and since heat rises, that way the thermal energy is quite well contained.

Maxwell has tracked with great precision the historical growth rate of the earth.  As you can see it looks like the planets growth rate is exponential.  Though the graph looks to be going straight up thats only because of comparisons with the very feeble growth rates of long ago.  Since right now the growth is 22mm in radius per year. 

The amount of millimetres radius increase per year will continue to increase.  But the PROPORTIONAL yearly increase may be pretty close to its peak already.  And an understanding of the inner earth, as I have described in this thread, should tell you why this would be the case. 

With regards to the model described in the thread. I want you all to visualise it since it helps explain very easily the record of the earths growth. You see the inner matter creation of the earth only 70 million years ago was weak. Very feeble. And there is a lot of room for improvement. Think of the layers of gasses in the inner core and liquids in the outer core …. gasses and liquids chiefly due to extreme heat. Temperatures far higher than we perceive from the surface since that UP and Down have been reversed to the heat is contained much better than the mainstream could imagine.

Now the gravity where the inner core is quite a bit weaker than the gravity we experience here at the surface. So the charge separation, indirectly due to gravity …. Its got to be a situation wherein this feature has a great deal of “room for improvement” don’t you think?

So you have all these layers capturing much of the periodic table …. but of course with only a 760 mile radius, and feeble gravity, we would not expect such clear differentiation. Then when we get up to the last five layers ….. helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, pure space …… Well with so little gravity and so little space to work with …. the differentiation between the hydrogen, proton, and electrons …… These aren’t going to be cleanly distinct layers in any absolutist sense. But as the planets and stars get bigger, the gravity and the inner voids get larger, then the charge separation will get more distinct, so that the matter creation will become more efficient.

So its very easy to understand why the moons expansion is so feeble. And why the earths expansion was also very feeble not so long ago.

Here is the figures for how the surface area of earth has changed over time.  Now note that the surface of the earth increased only 0.31 percent in that ten million years between 170 and 180 million years ago.  That is really close to fuck all.  Barely fucking nothing. The inner void must have been very small.  The indirect charge separation due to gravity must have been very feeble.  The last five layers (helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, space) must have been differentiated only as a slight matter of degree. 

Contrast this to how the surface area has increased 5.52 per cent in the last ten million years.  Well the last five layers won’t be as distinct and awesome as they could be. The gravity starting from the inner core/outer core boundary is still pretty feeble.  But nonetheless we have begun to hit a sweet spot; a pretty functional new matter creation setup, with a powerful yet tiny inner sun blazing away in the gamma …  So new matter is getting created apace.   So clearly there is much room for improvement but proportionately it will begin to level out and then later start dropping.  It won’t continue to be exponential as Maxlow has suggested. 

We must always remember that in physics we are talking about quirky proposed MECHANISMS.  Not Jew Voodoo principles.  So we don’t want to make the mistake of looking at the data and being too quick to suggest that the PRINCIPLE we are divining is a principle of EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.  Once we drill down to the MECHANISM, as I have done in this thread, we find that the growth will continue to increase in ABSOLUTE terms,  but that this growth will “soon” reach a peak in proportional terms,  when the situation is such, that the internal new matter creation “factory” gets as efficient as its ever going to get. 

I hope you can visualise, in your minds eye, by way of my model, why this has to be the case. 

I think I heard Paul Laviolette suggest that Sagittarius A* was creating the vast majority of new matter in the galaxy.  I am not sure it was he who said that.  But can you see that by way of my analysis this is unlikely to be the case?  The new matter creation factory is likely to be proportionately more efficient in fairly modest sized stars.  Actually if we are really talking about PROPORTIONATE efficiency it will be in gas giants, or indeed in rocky planets not so much bigger than our own.  In other words the proportionate efficiency will be in very large planets.  So I cannot see Sagittarius A* as being the great new matter creation venue.  Since the layer differentiation can only get so good.  The charge separation will only get so distinct.  At some point the inner sun efficiency in new matter creation will reach diminishing returns.

 

 

Forces Affecting Mountain Development (Everything You Wanted To Know About Gravity But Were Afraid To Ask).

When we look at the fossil record and we compare it to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift, we see a lot of convergent evidence for this geological theory.  People who have followed me right from where I threw down the gauntlet, and made my statement of epistemology, before following the implications of that statement, down myriad rabbit holes will say to me … “Slow down there Visigothkhan.  Slow down there ”  They will say that “……….  by your own admission it is convergent evidence that leads to rightful certitude.  So you say that there is convergent evidence in support of plate tectonics.  And yet you claim that plate tectonics is horseshit.  What gives?”

Except where being forced apart by new matter creation,  continents are endless contiguous rock.  They are locked in place and not about to “drift” anywhere. 

No force vectors can ever be drawn in such a way as to show how continents could be drifting around. 

This story of continental drift runs convergent with the evidence we derive from the fossil record.  But it just so happens that continental drift is impossible. As it is impossible, it cannot be true.  One of the only times where relying on convergent evidence alone, leads to the wrong result.

The issue is to do with how far you can expect to get results from applying a force, when the earth you are applying the force against is not infinitely hard.   So what happens when you are in Sydney, and pushing your bulldozer against the earth and the earth is made of marshmellow?  Do you expect to get an outcome that is noticeable in the marshmellow earth near Gosford?  No I don’t think so do you? There is only so far the force can travel if the ground you are pushing against is soft.

But how about if you have a REALLY souped up steam and nuclear powered giant bulldozer and the ground you are pushing against is made of iron? Do you suspect you will get perceivable results in the iron ground of Dubbo?  Could you create a subduction zone in Dubbo, with your fantastical bulldozer,  if all the earth between Sydney and Dubbo were made of iron?  No that is completely ridiculous, and if you could buckle the iron, with a powerful force, it remains the case that all the buckling would be localised, relatively speaking.

Thats the end of the story.  Thats a debunking from which this continental drift theory cannot recover from.  Let these asshats push two hills apart before trying to jive us with such idiocy as to expect that you can force two continents apart that way.

Of course the culprit is the Jew takeover of science beginning with aether denial.  Aether denial, the conservation of matter (in the secular formulation) the conservation of energy (in an atheists setting)  … these are all logical impossibilities.  But you MUST fucking believe the impossible in all cases or a coterie of Jews will fuck with your career.

Potholer has never got anything right in the world of science. See where he ludicrously suggests that force can be transmitted many thousands of miles. Any attempt to produce force leads to highly localised results. Even if the earth was made of diamond, or titanium, an attempt to produce force would only lead to local buckling.

Check potholers animation 6 minutes and 50 seconds in. He’s representing here, the idea that force can transmitted, all the way from the Pacific ring of fire, to an imaginary subduction zone, somewhere underneath the North American continent. Potholer is an op, and he has changed his animations in an attempt not to be shamed by my criticisms of the stupidity of his implied claims.

So continental drift theory is sent to the fires and the growing earth theory is proven.  And thats very fortunate.  Because if the earth were not expanding with new matter production … We would be at a loss to figure out where all the matter had come from.  It turns out that it is being produced beneath our feet.  The existence of matter itself would be a fantastical conundrum if we had no location for its production.

On strictly logical grounds it is matter that must produce more matter.  Or if that were not the case, each individual creation event of new matter would be a separate miracle.  Only Jew science relies on miracles.  In real science we don’t rely on miracles and therefore matter had to be producing new matter and therefore the source of the new matter production had to be beneath our feet.  Or at least at the centre of major gravitational bodies.

To understand all the possible forces that could be leading to the building of mountains you need a more realistic view of gravity, then what our covert leaders will allow. Let me explain the Graeme Bird view of gravity,  using hot rod racing as an example.

I would expect a hot rod weighing one tonne, to be a few kilos lighter in its acceleration phase. Supposing the hot rod hit a very fast and stable speed? I would expect that ALMOST all of its weight would be restored. Maybe the hot rod would weigh a gram shy of one tonne. Acceleration perpendicular to the direction of gravity should disrupt the aether strongly. High velocity perpendicular to the direction of gravity ought to disrupt the aether just a little bit. This should work for orbits as well.

It will take awhile for you to get your head around my alternative view of gravity.  I point the way towards pretty simple stuff and I’m not in any way claiming that it took an original mind to speculate about these sorts of things.  I am approaching this as a fellow who thinks that not everything the rabbi tells me is the truth.  I’m not approaching the matter from the point of view that I’m deluding myself that Brian and Beverly’s (my parents) DNA was so much better than everyone else’s.  Somewhat Worthy DNA for sure, but thats not where I’m coming from.  This is a matter closer to those subjects that people worked with to produce the American RICO legislation (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) …. then it is to the ideas that people were working on within the Manhattan project.

I can prove to about a 90% certainty, on purely logical grounds, that gravity is caused by the connections created by the luminiferous aether.  Simply on the basis that nature is unlikely to use two sets of connections when one set of connections would do.

Put three mathematicians close together, and they will struggle to solve the three-body problem for planetary orbits. They are using Newtons formulae and assumptions.

Put three planet-sized objects together and they solve the three-body problem just fine. So is dumb matter smarter than a mathematician? No I don’t think so. I think that the three planets aren’t using Newtons formulae or assumptions. Newton is wrong and obviously so. Its time we stopped with the public service thing and actually did the work. But we will not be able to unless we can isolate Jew subversion first.

Flight, and particularly flight in a vacuum is inherently unstable. Forget the THREE body problem. How about the ten billion body orbits problem that the milky way solves each day? However gravity works, and surely it must be dumb gravity, rather than directed by Allah ……. it has an whole set of feedback loops which keep orbits naturally stable, and stops large objects from crashing into each other.

There is no getting around this.

Thinking about the biggest continent … Eurasia shall we say.  Eurasia doesn’t sit on the earth flat.  Eurasia CURVES around a nearly spherical earth.  But consider the situation 200 million years ago?  When almost the same continent curved around a MUCH SMALLER planet.  So can you see, I think you can, that the curve of Eurasia is much greater on a smaller planet.  And while Eurasia is still a wrap-around continent, the fact is its flatter as time goes on.  The bigger is the planet the flatter is the continent.

So in the first instance mountains and indeed hills are created by way of the continent, that had been MORE CURVED settling in a way that now allows the continent to be LESS CURVED because of a larger planet.

This is the way that mountains and hills are created. But the title of this thread is “Forces Affecting Mountain Development” so what else are we to talk about?

The Logos personified probably has many projects of his own:

Jew physicists are loading him up with the repetitive grunt-work. Doing what he does requires some focus. To the Jew physicist its okay to expect the saviour to divide his attention with constant micro-adjustments to trillions of orbits in order that the cosmos falls in with Newtons formulae.

The ice distribution in the world today implies that we have gone through a recent pole shift.  In science we don’t rely on a giant God to jerk the earth suddenly and then re-establish its former rotation not long after.  And even if a God tried to reach out and do so, it would be hard to be able to get the traction to do this in space.  The only way for this to happen, practically speaking, is by way of a “close-passing comet” …  A comet with a giant nucleus, that gets to be so close it passes between the earth and the moon.

James McCanney pioneered this possibility.  Its pretty clear that this happened fairly recently.  But in order for this theory to be correct, the former South Pole at sea, had to have gathered a great deal of anti-clockwise momentum, and thereafter run aground and climbed up the side of the Antarctic continent.  I just wanted to get that objection out of the way.  Because this is indeed what did happen.  As the pattern of ancient ice reveals.  This would have been a truly awesome thing to watch, and I envy the handful of humans, probably less than 3000 years ago, who got to see this.  The pole shift itself was probably just shy of 3200 years ago.  1177 BC by one estimate.  But it would have taken the ice associated with the former South Pole, a lot of time to have gathered enough anti-clockwise momentum in order to run aground.

“The flyby anomaly is a discrepancy between current scientific models and the actual increase in speed (i.e. increase in kinetic energy) observed during a planetary flyby by a spacecraft. In multiple cases, spacecraft have been observed to gain greater speed than scientists have predicted and as yet no convincing explanation has been found.”

This situation effortlessly explained by the Graeme Bird view of physics, cosmology and gravity. 

When a close-passing comet, gets between us and the moon,  what sort of effect will the gravity between the nucleus of that comet, and our earth …. what sort of effect will that have on the ground?  This depends on how gravity works independent of heritage formulae.  Gravity is a mechanism, and does not goose-step to the tune of the mathematical approximations of yesteryear.  Certainly the physical world has no respect whatsoever for Jew Quantum “PRINCIPLES” …  Holy Allah and all his celestial concubines!!!!!   What could have possessed us to believe that it was okay for these rabbis to substitute Jew fantasy physics principles,  for the important hard yards of getting to know the quirks of a mechanism?

In any case I am suggesting that I have reason to believe that the mechanism of gravity has greater local effects than the formulae would assume.  I also suggest that denser materials have disproportionately greater gravity production then less dense materials.  So I suggest that more dense materials in body A, has a massively greater attraction to the more dense materials in body B, then in all the other permutations going on in the gravity interactions between the two bodies.

So your rocket is pointed at the earth. But you are a long distance from the earth. The gravity of the earth is helping you build speed. Your rocket is pointed almost exactly at the centre of the earth but not quite. So since you are accelerating TOWARD the force of gravity and not moving perpendicular I am not expecting the aether to be prevented from reconstituting itself much.

But when you get closer you end up moving very fast to the side of the planet. Plus its at this point you would accelerate, firing your rockets …. and since the acceleration is perpendicular to the planet ………….. gravity reduces a great deal. Hence the energy anomaly.

So you are accelerating away with the planet at your side which reduces gravity. But you accelerated IN with the planet in front so that was neutral to gravity. So you get a boost.

The energy anomaly breaks the law of the conservation of energy. But thats okay because that law was always stupid.

The possibility that gravity worked disproportionately more strongly between super-dense materials was presented to me in primary school.  I think it was when I was seven. But I may have been as old as ten.  But what I do know,  is that I found the anecdote that contained this potential implication, very curious, and actually quite disturbing.  The story has bothered me ever since.

Probably you think I’m exaggerating that the hot rod will be a few kilos lighter when accelerating. Well maybe so. There has to be a great many variables that go into how much weight reduction is caused by acceleration. It will depend a lot on the materials used.

 

But there can be no doubt that acceleration leads to weight reduction or the old mans wrist would break. And this reality needs to be part of the sane study of planetary orbits.

Gravity meters are used for flyovers in the desert. They are used to try and figure out where there are ore deposits. The commercial uses of detecting gravity ought to be creating friction with the Newtonian system. No doubt there are covert research projects that have figured out in great detail how gravity works. But for public consumption we are still getting that hippy Newton and that conman Einstein.

“In a demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006),[5] describes how an instrument at Metsähovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof.”

In the legend the plumb bob holds steady towards Mount Everest

This tall story has disturbed me over many decades. Think through how that even COULD be possible?

We always talk about gravity as if it were to do with the centre of the earth calculations. But we would have an whole new set of calculations to deal with if we were thinking of it as a nucleon-to-nucleon phenomenon. On that level we may find out that the drop-off of gravitational attraction is closer to the 3rd power rather than to the 2nd. No doubt all this work has been done, it just does not appear to be public.

I suspect that more dense objects will exert a disproportionate gravitational pull. Its hard to imagine aerial prospecting being practical were this not the case.

When I was in primary school we would get these old Jesus interpreters showing up in class to help us with our spiritual development. In an analogy to do with sin, this old fellow started talking about plumb-bobs. He suggested that sometime in his youth he was working overseas, and he had a plumb-bob that swung and held steady toward Mount Everest. Sounds like a tall story to me and I may have got it wrong after all this time. But supposing thats true? We will work through a cascade of thinking based on the possibility that the story may be true. Although in the 45 odd years since that time I’ve never heard any such story repeated.

The uppermost leadership was always evil.  The empire was never acceptable. 

But the middle management were probably well-meaning human beings. The people who worked at the lower levels of the hierarchy, often at least tried to be helpful. The top leadership was evil,  but the Christian culture,  was in many ways benevolent.   And not everything the old man told me was wrong. 

“…..the mass of Mount Everest is so great that the weighted bob at the end of the plumb line on the theodolite, a surveyor’s instrument, is pulled toward the mountain, distorting the measurement……”

Maybe the amateur bible instructor wasn’t talking nonsense. In my audit of modern cosmology and physics, I take the attitude of a judge. And a hanging judge at that. So while recognising that I could have the wrong end of the stick here, that is not my guiding assumption. I don’t doubt myself as my leading methodology. If its a plumb bob that is your only tool, how is it that you know its off-centre in the first place? Its gravity that tells us which way is up. So how would you so much as notice that your plumb bob was out of line?

The bible instructor filled the children’s minds with troubling memes and stories

His befuddling plumb bob and Everest story was his crowning achievement.

So I say this implies a couple of things. Newtons formulae (to the extent that they are pretty much correct within a certain range) ought be considered to be calculating, not gravity,  but an emergent property of gravity.

1. The inverse square law ought not apply at the local level.

2. Local gravity ought to disproportionately attract the more dense material (the plumb bob is made of lead).

3. The story seems to suggest that the density of materials within the mountain may be on average higher than it is typically below the ground. Which is counter-intuitive, since then you would expect the mountain to want to sink back down into the earth.

You can see how the story by the ancient traveller has troubled me. It may have been as early as 1973 and the fellow may have been as old as 70.  That could mean he was born as early as 1903 and therefore a creature of the British Empire.  So he could have been to El Dorado, Shangri La, Shamballah and that lonely road where two moons rise, and he comes back to our country town to benefit us children with all his knowledge. For it is the case that the Empire sent these fellows on wondrous journeys,  and decades later they would show up in ones primary school class with a great many tall stories.

But this plumb bob story was the most troubling yarn of all.  It does not seem to make any sense. Its like what the lay preachers would tell us about the father, the son and the holy spirit. How can they be one and three at the same time? And what exactly is the holy spirit in any case? These spiritually deep,  and well-travelled types,  start filling up the kids heads, with troubling information.  But the old man really outdid himself,  with his plumb-bob and Everest story.

You have your Phobos-like space station to help you with mining operations in the asteroid belt. You build a 20 metre deep tungsten floor. Forget what Newton came up with. Do we have the experimental work, completed and public, to say whether this deep floor could produce disproportionate gravity?

I don’t think we do. I think gravity has become a state secret. You keep a secret mainly by filling the air with a smokescreen of ludicrous bullshit.

Lets drill down on this plumb-bob business before I explain the two other causes of mountain building.  Which way is up?  Which way is down? It is gravity that tells us which way is up and which way is down.  When we say that our plumb-bob is “leaning” (Neither “leaning” nor “swinging” is the right word here) is an admission that the direction of up is different for the plumb-bob then it is for you.  I always believe in drilling down inductively to the maximum degree even when all the facts are not to hand.  That way when the new data arrives, you can immediately see the implications inherent in this data.  Data is not evidence but because you have done the hard yards you are quickly able to transmute this data, into usable evidence, by a process of human reason.

No group of three or more gentiles could possibly keep a secret by relying on human discipline expressed jointly and severally.  Rather,  as any good dynast or Jew would know, secrets can only be kept by way of hiding that secret in an explosion of ludicrous multi-layered bullshitartistry. Reverse engineering modern physics reveals that it is the true nature of gravity they are trying to hide, with their garish nonsense. Although there also contains a strong streak of general demoralisation in their ideology. And they want to mislead us about fusion as well. 

Song and dance man comparable to Al Jolson.

But here we have the worry that some Jew might laugh at us, when people on the ground near Mount Everest have more understanding of how things work near Mount Everest?  I say so what?  Why would I give a fuck about some inbred troglodyte being able to come up with a “gotcha” moment? Its not like that would be a critique from anyone I could possibly respect.

Test vehicle unsuited for long distance flight. Where are you going to fit the washing machine? Let alone the cows.

It took a great deal of blowing smoke to associate this type of flight with aliens. They are screwing with us.

So if “up” and “down” are slightly different for the man holding the plumb-bob, then it is for the plum-bob,  this suggests to me everything I’ve already said about gravity.  More localised, disproportionate at the local level, with the attraction between denser materials.  So I say the mountain is made of more dense material than what is immediately beneath our feet, even as the plumb bob is made of more dense materials, than the man holding it.

As I said before this is a deeply troubling hypothesis.  Since if the mountain is more dense, than the ground that surrounds it, why does it not simply sink into the ground?

The Max Plank institute for gravitational physics. Busy NOT studying gravity. Think of how I would want gravity studied and then check their list of publications. Appropriately named the Albert Einstein Institute. Complete bullshit. Talking always about gravity waves. Both gravity and light are a function of aether. Waves along the aether is light. So where do gravity waves fit into this picture? Just constant lies.

http://www.aei.mpg.de/

The Physics equivalent of a Jew terrorist false flag attack.

Brian Greene had his well tailored casual gear and his expensive animation backed spiel, edited, and in-the-can ……  prior to the phoney announcement.

The material beneath the deep ocean ought to be more dense on average than the landed materials.  As suggested before, the normal way of things is for the heavier materials to sink below the lighter ones.  In this analysis we have the troubling fact that the nature of the materials of the nucleus of comets is an oligarchical secret.  The oligarchy keeps bullshitting us, as though we were Soviet peasants, that the nucleus of a comet is made of dirty ice.  This is all lies.  I will assume that there is some selective bias that leads to a tendency for the nucleus of comets to be made of unusually dense materials.  That the comet pulls a lot of debris (rocks, water vapour, hydrocarbons) behind it is one selective bias … The nucleus is the clear gravitational leader in this story.  I’m going to assume that there is more going on than just that,  and that the nucleus of comets tends to be made of unusually dense rock.  I have some reason to believe this,  which I won’t get into here.

 

Now supposing a close-passing comet, with a nucleus bigger than Mars, and smaller than Venus, gets between us and the Moon?  With gravitational forces that are more localised than what you would think, where dense-to-dense material produces a disproportionate attraction …. think what this could mean as a real-gravity-wave (as opposed to a Brian Greene bullshit gravity wave) passes over the earths surface?   Suddenly you could have super-dense rocks under the ocean being pulled up in a mountain chain right? Yes you could yes you could.

I mean where do you think we get all that Himalayan salt from right?  From the fucking Himalayas is where we get that salt. This implies that a lot of salt water has been brought up with the mountain chain.   I think that implication follows rather directly.  But we need not rely on the rocks being underneath the sea to be pulled up abruptly.  It could be stuff on land directly underneath the comet nucleus that serendipitously was more dense than most of the earth around it.

Sounds a lot more recent and more exciting than standard geology right? Labouring under Jew/oligarchical restrictions puts the consensus view entirely out of whack.  One wonders what the ancients said about the mountains in their various writings.

There is certainly reason to be on the look-out for unexpected indications that many mountain ranges may be a great deal younger than what we are being told.

The mountains, lonesome, cold and very very heavy,  forever long to sink back into the warm embrace, of the ground beneath.

But once forced above the ground, the vigilante Moon-God, will never let the mountains sink back home.  Orbits of two or more major bodies are energy-positive.  They are sources of pristine energy into the universe.  The moon has more than enough energy to overmatch the earths growing gravitational strength, to raise the tides,  and keep the lonely cold mountains exposed … Even after that she has enough juice left over to accelerate away from the earth.  No decrease in the sidereal rotation speed of the earth, at the equator,  has ever been measured.  The days get longer, but that is not the same thing. 

Causes of mountaining ……  So far ………..

So thats growing earth settling, and close passing comet forcing covered.  I have covered these two sources of mountain-building.

But what keeps the super-dense mountains up and growing? What stops them from sinking down into the less dense ground around them?  The answer is the moon.  Every day the moon sends a real-gravity-wave (Not Brian Greene bullshit gravity wave) across the earth.  This raises the ocean water several metres higher.  I think its about 7 metres isn’t it?  But it raises the earth higher as well.  It rolls over the earth and raises up the earth maybe an inch or a centimetre higher and I would be very interested in knowing the exact amount.  But as this wave rolls along, when it hits a super-dense mountain thats sitting there it will exert a very powerful upward force.  So along with growing earth settling and regular tidal force of the moon, these mountains, more dense than the sub-surface ground around them,  will continue to grow.  If we had a reliable way of knowing when we got all these mountains,  we might have a way of figuring out when it was that we captured our moon.  Since without the moon the mountains would tend to erode and settle.

https://steemit.com/science/@clearshado/anti-gravity-experiment-results

The anti-gravity effect of forcing two magnets together and then dropping the resulting weight ….. Now notice how this important finding has been ignored? The moratorium on developing a better understanding of gravity is very powerful. Gravity is definitely an oligarchical secret.

Meanwhile the Max Plank institute for gravitational research does everything it can not to actually investigate gravity. This is a Jew thing.

 

 

 

False Accusations Against Raw Milk Endanger The Public: Case Study Schiding Family

“Jordan and Stephanie Schiding wanted to give their children every health advantage.

That’s the reason the Schidings, two months ago, signed up for a local cow-share program after they read about the health benefits of unpasteurized milk.”

So far so good.  If kids are going to drink any kind of milk it must be raw milk.  However there are hormonal problems with any cows milk since it is geared up for the little calf to gain weight at a rate that would be alarming for a human.  A fat person ought to check if his addiction to milk might be part of the cause. 

“Instead, 18-month-old Genevieve and 3-year-old Anthony contracted an illness caused by E. coli bacteria and ended up with kidney failure in the pediatric intensive care unit at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital — two of 12 local children hospitalized with E. coli since the end of May.”

As we will find out this is shorthand for what really happened. Which is okay.  But what fact do we take out of this? The fact is that the kids got an e-coli infection.  E-coli is everywhere so its excess E-coli we test for.  And we test we will find it if its there.  So for example we can always track down the specific lettuce outbreak of e-coli if we investigate.  Investigate means not assuming that you already know where the excess e-coli is.  You have to find it out.  If you are in a cow share program you know exactly where to go to test for the e-coli, if you thought that it was that farm that was to blame. 

“Knox County Health Department staff told the Schidings the E. coli infection was likely linked to the consumption of raw milk from French Broad Farm.”

Why did they tell them that? Why? They fucking practicing the gift of second sight? Did they go out there and do the test? No they fucking didn’t.  Did they send for any remaining milk at home so that it could be tested? No they fucking didn’t.

 By pretending they had the gift of second site, bullshitting the parents WITHOUT making the tests, they put the kids in deadly peril.  If it was the milk then why had the alert not gone out? You don’t keep milk more than a week.  They should have been able to test the unfinished milk in the bottles of milk back home.  If not with these kids, then with one of the others that were infected in this outbreak.  So what happens when you accuse one source without testing?   What happens is that the real source of the infection is STILL AT LARGE. 

“On Thursday, the health department lifted its directive that requested French Broad Farm temporarily cease operations. But health department Director Dr. Martha Buchanan reiterated that consuming raw milk is always risky and health officials recommend the public consume only pasteurized milk and dairy products.”

So this evil fucking bitch doesn’t find the real source of the outbreak, which could have been lettuce, could have been anything raw.  She closes them down, she doesn’t find anything, but she slurs them anyway.  Yet worse then that she didn’t find the actual source of the outbreak so THAT SOURCE REMAINED AT LARGE. 

“Jordan Schiding said he and his wife knew there was “potential” for food poisoning from unpasteurized milk, which both adults drank with seemingly no serious effects, but “we were definitely not aware that anything like this was remotely possible.”

Well of course its possible.  The farmer could get lazy and not test batches for e-coli and tuberculosis frequently enough.  A casual worker could be late for a hot date and stop washing the cows teat and wiping them with an iodine solution.  Its not likely though because the farmers selling raw milk are so much under the gun.  And its very clear that it didn’t happen in this case.  Which meant the real cause of the outbreak was STILL AT LARGE.  Notice that the parents drank the milk and they didn’t get sick.  So we have both positive and negative evidence that it wasn’t the milk.  It was something else they ought to have been looking for. 

“Schiding said the family brought Genevieve to the emergency room at Children’s Hospital May 31 after she became seriously dehydrated with diarrhea and vomiting. As she was being admitted, Anthony also began vomiting.

The hospital rehydrated the children and discharged them a few hours later. Schiding believes they were among the first children related to the current cluster of E. coli cases to come to Children’s Hospital.”

Well that is great.  But if these clowns simply accuse the raw milk farmer and don’t find out scientifically what the real source was they put the kids in danger and sure enough……

“Two days later, after both children continued to get sicker, the Schidings brought them back to the hospital. This time, hospital staff took a stool sample from Genevieve, which tested positive for E. coli, and then from Anthony, who also tested positive. Both children were admitted, and Knox County Health Department contacted the couple the next day, he said.”

So they go to the hospital one time then they go back home without the authorities bothering to find out the real culprits and the kids are re-hospitalised again and this time almost fucking die.  This is a scandal.  Its a sudden outbreak and not all the kids had raw milk.  They say “most” of them did, but at this point we see the article has become so biased and unscientific that this should really be taken as a guilty confession that not all the kids had any of this milk, and so the e-coli outbreak was from another source. 

The statistical possibility that this sudden outbreak could be from the milk, and not all the kids drink the milk is not real likely.  It requires such a coincidence in timing and location that we could almost rule it out in the first instance.  But since the raw milk place was then suspended but reopened we must conclude that it was tested and it was clean.  So we have the convergent evidence that it wasn’t the milk.  Because they admit that some kids got the e-coli without taking the milk. The parents took the milk and did not get sick.  In fact probably all of the kids except for the Schiding family didn’t drink the milk or these people would have named names with such a thin case as theirs.  So it wasn’t the milk.   But they fucked up so badly they could scarcely go and find out what the real cause was. 

Knox county I know its only science but I like it.  Try science you fucking cunts.  It won’t kill you.  But if you don’t try science next time you could kill a bunch of kids. 

 

Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The Last Calf Sacrificed Before Milking: Human Sacrifice Only.

On a superficial level, as the video I will showcase admits ….. It did seem that the mindless human sacrifice of women and children, that the two nuclear bombings represented, did end the war.  The narrative is so clear, and the timing seems so right.  One problem is that people don’t realise that it was human sacrifice that was the main point of the war.  It wasn’t even really a war.  It was Jew human sacrifice PRETENDING to be war.  And with enough time and research you can prove this to your self.

Remember my story about the rabbi murdering calves? And the last calf he murdered happened just before the cows got milked?  But what if you found out he had murdered 67 calves prior to the calf that just got murdered before the milking was started?  Would it THEN be so obvious that the last calf murder is what made the milking of the cows possible?  See the rabbi has a good story if you forget about the 67 other calf murders and only rely on that one that happened just prior to the milking.

This is actually a very good analogy, as opposed to most of the last thread where it was only a good analogy at a single point of it.  You see if you negotiate properly, from a position of strength and with good intentions, suddenly you find out that you can do a deal.  The cows want to release pressure from their tits, which are growing progressively more uncomfortable.  The farmer wants their milk.

At this point we can clear up the mystery of mad cow disease.  I think you girls will know what I am talking about.  Supposing a man washed your tits then sucked them twice a day,  but only gave you a fuck once a year?  Don’t you think you would be a mad cow as well?

Before the bombs were dropped we wanted our prisoners back.   We wanted the Japanese, for the most part, back within their territory.  The Japanese wanted lots of oil and lots of food, an honourable resolution, and their women not to be raped by Stalins hordes.

The colonial British had food. (The English themselves were desperately hungry.) The Americans had food and oil and the capacity to transport both to the Japanese.  The Japanese wanted safe transport of over a million of their soldiers home, should they agree to stop fighting.  Supposing  you stop fucking killing their girls and do a deal? Might not a deal get done? If you could not cut a deal under that situation you aren’t going to be able to organise a whore-house for long-haul truck drivers.

The white Devil was allied to the Japanese.  Suddenly we end the alliance for no sane reason, we start demonising and persecuting them, and then when they retaliate a little bit, instead of retaliating back in some slightly scaled up way, we start acting like we are going to destroy every last one of them??? Surely after all this time we can admit that the white devils behaviour was insane??

So supposing you suddenly want to give them many things they want, not dishonour them, and stop killing their kids …… Don’t you imagine you can get some things you want in return? You would have to be a pretty useless negotiating team if you could not get EVERYTHING YOU REALLY NEED under these idyllic negotiating circumstances.

I think that the knowledge that the Americans had nuclear weapons DID play a part in helping win the war.  But in context we will show that the murder of all those women and children, with the use of these weapons, had absolutely no part to play in ending the war, and that its actually quite irrational to suggest so.

We must try to be like Aquinas and make these fine distinctions …. The CAPACITY to use nuclear weapons in war ……… HELPFUL.   The use of nuclear weapons in the two acts of human sacrifice …. completely irrelevant.  As irrelevant as our rabbi beating that last Frisian calf to death, after sacrificing 67 others quite similar to her.

At this point we will digress for the purpose of describing a general model as to how you win a war.  What winning means.  How you know when you have won and so forth.  To win a war or to even know whether you should be fighting you need to know what peace looks like.  What is an acceptable peace for your citizens.  This can be hard to explain in the context of World War II since both Germany and Japan had always wanted to be friends with us!!!!! They didn’t want to hurt anyone in any of the allied countries.  They had no claims on the United States, or the countries of the British Empire, so its obvious that the war was the doing of our elites.   But if you allow the known details of the second world war to invade your mind while I am explaining how to win A REAL WAR then you will never ‘get it’…  Because the war against Germany and Japan amounted to mindless violence on our part.

So lets forget World War II for the moment and try and understand what honest war is all about.  Supposing its about

MORE LATER

 

Just War Theory Versus Jew Ritual Murder Posing As War.

I am going to tell a story which is supposed to be analogous to World War II.  But its not a good analogy at all.  And its not a good analogy to the bad decisions made during World War II.  But just at one point there is a good analogy to an argument that is often made about the Nagasaki bomb.

Jews and oligarchs always employ DISTRACTION MURDERS for their plots. They were faking us out with Hiroshima.  The more important target was Nagasaki which is why Jew media tends to forget to mention this city.   Nagasaki was a Christian city.  And the Jews saw to it that the bomb was dropped as directly on the main church as they could manage it. 

There is this rabbi that lives in the bushes next to our place.  He lives just below the sewerage line of the outdoor toilet because Jews are parasites and parasites are attracted to excretions.  Why do we tolerate him?  Well our family like many others is subject to social conditioning.  We want to tell him that we don’t want him around but as far as we know, no Jew ever does anything wrong and we see him as a victim.  But we have to have a semi-plausible excuse to keep him around.  So we tell ourselves and everyone who will listen, that he is keeping the population of possums down.

A rabbi lives in the bushes next to our house. Even the kids earnestly praise him to the hilt, though he disgusts each one of them.  They individually assume that they are the only one in possession of an errant heart. 

Why do we think he’s keeping the possum population down? Well you see he takes baby possums, sucks and bites their foreskins off, and spreads herpes.  He has mouth herpes and spreads it to the babies like all the other rabbis do.  Personally I think that giving venereal disease to animals as a control mechanism as being unethical.  Particularly in the case of Carp its cruel and unusual punishment as they have no hands.

He takes the smaller male adult possums and bites their thyroid gland out of their neck; that being his only nutrition.  So we keep falling over ourselves, passing complements on how well he is keeping the possum population down.  In fact the possums are getting more numerous and much much bigger because he leaves the big ones alone.  Our pseudo-earnestness  makes us red in the face as we enthusiastically praise him on his possum control because its such a social fucking faux pas not to heap great praise on your local Jew.

Under the rabbis stewardship the possums are getting larger and more numerous.  We fear they will soon take over the house.  Yet we praise the rabbi for his vigilante possum control.  Its socially awkward to do otherwise.  One of the larger possums wears a small black cap and another is attending a local Jewish seminary. 

It would be a mistake to say that because of our praise of the rabbi his confidence has grown.  And now he wants to help us get the cows milked.  No thats not it.  He was always confident, and always had grandiose plans.  Its more that he can smell weakness and indecision and so he decided to branch out into “driving” the cows to the milking shed.

The Maori without loan money or earth-moving equipment had terraced rolling hillsides in a way that we could not seem to manage.  This is market failure.  This is a symptom of how fucked our financial system is. 

We separate the cows from their calves early on.  Then teach the calves to drink milk from a bucket. Why separate the little calf from his mother?  This is fighting nature and is cruel punishment for any mammal.  We do this because we have to drive the cows from all over the farm, twice a day, to a fixed milking shed.  Why not a mobile milking setup?  Because the farm isn’t terraced.  Which is a failing commentary on our state-supported usury form of capitalism.  Money is lent at low interest to buy a farm.  Then the farmer is crippled in his capacity to improve the farm.  But money is not lent at low interest to improve the farm.  (Here in a nutshell is the problem of post-War farming. This is the reason that farmers are always ‘crying poor’ and usually seem to need some form of assistance or other.  It was never their fault.  It was a banking and money debacle).

So that even though the white man has been there with good tools, and in numbers, for more than 200 years, the farms still by and large aren’t terraced.   Yet from my place, particularly if I “ran away from home” for a couple of hours before getting hungry, I could see at least two flattened hill-tops.  Flattened by pre-European maoris for the military imperative of capturing the high ground.  Not even metal tools to do the job.  How useless is our system of finance?

Dairy is just one part of a full-blown terraced permaculture system.  Proper farming doesn’t tolerate a monoculture, even in herbivores. The cows, were they without milk, would still be fantastically valuable for their manure and urine.  But the ideal herd isn’t even a herd.  Its a flock and a herd (A “Flerd”) combined with many species moved together and at least one other moving with a time delay after the main bunch. Milk as just one product of the farm ought to be taken by mobile milking units. 

Mobile milking and 200+ tiny micro-paddocks would have been far superior if the farm were terraced.  Since it would spread the cow manure and urine around the farm and not into the low altitude creek where the milking shed is.  So the farm would have been lush at all times.  Even in a drought the terraced nature of the farm would have meant that water was soaked into the ground, with much more than a years worth of water.  In real life we didn’t have any of this so the little calves were cruelly separated from their mothers early on.

Neglecting to terrace hillside agricultural land is brazen market failure.  Vivid proof that the neoclassical approach to capitalism does not produce an idyllic well-balanced Misesean economy.  Terracing land is not just a rice thing.  It ought to be ubiquitous regardless of the type of farming involved. 

Anyway in my story, as opposed to real life, we drive the cows and the calves together to the static milking shed.  An unrealistic scenario and there is some resistance to being driven as the mothers naturally want to wait for their slower walking young calves.  The kids are making noises and they carry sticks to drive the cows along. Someone is out ahead of the cows yelling “Come on …. Come on …. Come on ….” and there never used to be too much of a problem getting them to the milking shed,  until one day the rabbi jumps out from behind a tree and surprises everyone by smashing a lagging calf to death right there on the road.

Our rabbi.  This time in formal dress and still full of surprises.

From that day on the cows are of course more leery at leaving the paddock in the first place.  But here is this rabbi sacrificing calves all the way to the cow shed, claiming credit for getting the job done. And to be fair there is often just the faintest scintilla of truth to what he is saying.

Now particularly one day there is this frisian calf that he smashes to death just before the cows are in the shed ready to be milked.  Because one incident precedes the other he reckons that his sacrifice of “the enemy” (the little calf) is what caused the completion of the job.

“The Enemy”  According to our rabbi. 

How different is this “last calf” argument from the idea that the Jew ritual sacrifice of civilians in the Christian city of Nagasaki ended the war?  Its no different.  What a stupid argument.  Maybe there is a latin name for this formal fallacy, but what it amounts to is cherry-picking the starting point IN TIME as to when you allow the analysis.  But the choice wasn’t to bomb Nagasaki or not.  The choice was whether to practice the spirit and the letter of just war theory, from well before the war started …………..  or not.  If we had done that we would not have provoked a war with Japan in the first place. This is like the rabbi provoking a conflict with the mother of the calf by way of smashing the calves skull into the road.   The enemy of the American people was not the Japanese civilians.  The enemy of the American people was the oligarchical demi-Jew Roosevelt,  who worked very hard to provoke a Japanese attack.  This failure to follow good proper war ethics means the dumb bastards at Catallaxy, after 80 years or so, still don’t know who the enemy was.

“The Enemy” of the American people, according to the Jews at Catallaxy.  Deviations from Catholic just war theory inevitably leads to manipulation, idiocy, and the failure to prioritise the use of firepower.

So the reality was that all the costs in blood and money of fighting Japan was entirely unnecessary.  The elite Jew pigs and oligarchical families had their Soviet Union as a colony.  So they didn’t want the Japanese attacking north to get oil.  They knew the Japanese needed oil since the Americans went out of their way to starve the Japanese of oil.  So the elite Jew pigs and oligarchs were determined to get the Japanese to attack south instead.  If the US wasn’t run by traitors, they should have emphasised friendship with the Japanese people.  They ought to have opened up the oil sluices again, and tried to encourage our good good Japanese friends to treat the Chinese people, in the territories they occupied, an whole lot better.  The Americans certainly had the influence to get results in that area of kindness towards occupied peoples.

When these boys were young their country was allied with the British.  They were the natural allies of the Americans and it took a lot of work to make things otherwise.  They could fight on the smell of an oily rag and they ought to have been our best friends. To put us on a poor footing with sons of samurai was about the stupidest thing the white man could ever do.  But like I said … It took a great deal of work to make enemies out of them.

  It wasn’t the Japanese who made themselves our enemies. This was, for the ost part, an American undertaking. Jews, oligarchs and closet supporters of the Soviet Union did this to us.  The Americans easily had the negotiating power to get the colleagues of these boys to behave more humanely on Chinese territory.  The decision to occupy parts of China was made only because the alliance with Britain was ended on the insistence of the US.  Of course we could never approve of poor treatment of the Chinese people.  Treating occupied peoples with excess brutality can never be acceptable. But a handful of Japanese military bases on the mainland (near the Soviet border) was to our interest. 

From a patriotic point of view we really wanted to have the Japanese have some bases in mainland China to keep Jewish communism out.  We could have had them set up fortifications with a view to opposing the Soviets.  In fact the Japanese only occupied the mainland because the Americans persuaded the British to end their alliance with the Japanese.  So the whole thing was orchestrated within the US, perhaps even by the usual suspects.

The Duke Of Wellington.  The British opposition to Bonaparte may have been excessive.  An argument could be made that the British were the bad guys.  Its easy to make the case either way. But the WAY they fought Bonaparte was exemplary for the time.  In that they almost always sent most of their own boys home to Mama.  

If we went back to the early 19th century we could misuse this fallacy (cherry-picking the analytical start-point in time) to say that only pitched battles win wars.  We could then say that Wellington and before him Nelson were completely wasting their time with all that proxy and naval war against Napolean.  The theory would then go that we should have sent all these Brits in to clobber the French on the ground.  But to me the Nelson-Wellington campaigns were the absolute text-book example of ‘doing it right’ for a change.  The pitched battle only came when it served to end the conflict in its entirety.  Bloody good show I reckon.

Reagan if anything was even better with his Wellingtonian strategy of wearing down the Soviet Union without putting his boys in the field.  This shows the power of a strategy based around almost always trying to send your boys home to Mama.  Always train most of the lads to be shock troops.  But don’t use them in this fashion unless its absolutely necessary.

Formidable cold war leader who put together a strategy that killed almost no American soldier and few civilians of enemy governments (directly), but destroyed the Soviet Union.  Reagan hated both communism and nuclear weapons in a visceral way that is hard for most people to understand. The dispute over whether he took out the Soviet Union really comes about from the idea that warfare requires huge amounts of killing. 

 In retrospect if he had understood that the Jews and the oligarchs were the problem (and not the communists per se) he may have done things differently.  But given that his goal was to end the conflict between the Americans and the Soviets, his approach to the war was outstanding.  Most of his soldiers who did die were murdered by Israel in false flag attacks. 

Were you dropped into a decision-making role in the middle of World War II you should still focus on fighting ethically.  This focuses the mind and makes one stop wasting resources.  Germany didn’t have domestic oil and so relied on the Fischer–Tropsch process for converting coal into oil.  So beating the Germans in North Africa, and carpet bombing any Fisher Tropsch plants,  was all it would have taken,  to bring favourable negotiations from the German leadership.  Of course civilians would die when you were carpet bombing Fischer-Tropsch plants.  I offer this as consolation to the Jews and Hannibal Lechter types.

In any case it was really that easy.  No incendiary bombings aimed directly at cities was necessary or acceptable.  There were other super weak points to the German act that could have been exploited, and would have been exploited, if this Jew ritual sacrifice of holocaustic incendiary bombing were out of the way and out of the question.  This was the real “burnt offering” by the Jews OF GENTILES.  The other imaginary holocaust started out as straight Jew reversal.

British action against Bonaparte was necessary but it may have been and probably was excessive.  Yet with regards to World War One, this strategy showed that the British already had in their history,  the right formula to deal with a kick-ass continental power.  The British should have always stayed the good good friends of the Germans.  There was never any reason to not stay friends.  They ought to have outcompeted the Germans by bludgeoning their local bankers to only lend for wealth creation.  

But supposing they felt it necessary to weaken the Germans through warfare? They ought to have taken a leaf out of Nelsons book.  Patience, naval and proxy war ought to have been the priority.  Nelson took some tongs and placed them diagonally on the table.  He said it doesn’t matter how I place these tongs.  But if Bonaparte places them THIS WAY then I will place them THIS (ie on the other diagonal) WAY ….  This attitude was that of a warrior.  Not an attitude that had anything to do with Jew ritual murder. 

Good ethics helps you win the war because it helps prioritise where to put your resources.  Good ethics also helps you choose better ways to solve the underlying problems that seem to call for war as the solution to these problems.

Lets take the problem behind the motives of the British in World War I?

What were the underlying problems that made the British elite seek to fight Germany to a standstill? Rather than negotiate a fair peace after only a few months? It comes down to the excellent German worker and the nationalistic German banker.  Unlike bankers everywhere else, German bankers were lending for the purpose of wealth creation.  This was closer to idyllic Misean capitalism.  Rather than our own poxy state supported usury.  It was a matter of degree not an absolutist thing.  I have to find out much more about this.  I have to buy a bunch of books from E Michael Jones’ network and then eventually go back and look for late nineteenth century German economics translations.  Probably I won’t get it all done for awhile.  But this is the indication.  So Germany was outstripping the British in production.

Get strong but be friends with everyone. The twentieth centuries greatest statesman.  Kept his city state sovereign by skilfully staying friends with all the major parties.  Ethnically Chinese he maintained order and good relations in a multi-racial city and allowed for massive wealth creation on his territory.  Always treated communists humanely but often put them under house arrest.  Made absolutely no bones about putting potential subversives into humane detention.  Silenced other subversives by keeping a right to reply in the papers and by bankrupting bullshit artists with legal action.  Ran an honest non-corrupt government yet paid the best people massive salaries to be public servants.  Had to hang drug-dealers rather than bigshots since the international narcotics trade was at the time run by the English and the Chinese as a virtual duopoly.  He said “If we could we would kill them 100 times.”  Developed an armed forces that could repel a sneak attack but realised that he had to be diplomatic with all parties.  His then Malaysian counterpart Mahatir,  is currently beginning to match him for awesomeness.

Britain was also the greatest creditor nation.  And this had an effect that it tended to overprice their exports.  As a creditor nation they had great scope for wealth creation to outstrip these problems.  But there is a turd in the punchbowl here for the elite.  Wealth production is great for society.  But it isn’t necessarily so good for dynastic banking incumbents.  With great productive success prices tend to fall down towards marginal costs.  Loans get hard to pay off.  Fractional reserve banking requires SECURE profits to pyramid on. Under state supported usury, bankers only lend at reasonable interest on SURE THINGS, and even then only sometimes.

Wealth creating non-usurious non-fractional reserve banking, would amount to a conspiracy to annihilate profits.  Loans will get paid off more or less if the interest rate is low.  Try to do the same thing on a ponzi fractional reserve basis and the dynastic banking families might stand to lose everything.

“The Enemy” according to the Jew President Johnson. Jews always have a problem with other peoples children.  So President Johnson took anti-Just War to the ultimate extreme by BOMBING THE CHILDREN OF HIS ALLIES.  None of these genocidal bombing runs ever hurt a Viet Kong soldier since the bombing campaigns were announced in advance.  So the Kong could exit the relevant villages they were dwelling in,  leaving the enemies of the Jew Johnson (see the girl above) to be blown apart.   A general fidelity to Catholic Just War Theory would have prevented this troglodyte from  genocidal behaviour which distracted from both peace and the war effort. 

A strict fidelity to ethics in war …. if not full-blown Catholic Just War theory would have indirectly forced wealth creating banking on the British to keep their edge over the Germans.  They might have practiced usury outside of the empire.  But within they would have had to force changes on the bankers.  And thats where they come up against the Rothschild and extended banking network.  But there was no conflict in the elites at that time I think really.  Before the second World War there was division.  But I think the elite basically had decided that once they were in the (first world) war they were going to fight Germany to a standstill and this was fine for them, but not for the rest of the population.

LBJ.  Totally Evil Jew trogolodyte who lost a war against a third world country because he followed the Catallaxian Jews advice and focused bombing campaigns on civilians.  As a human being easily as evil as the Jew Stalin.  Perhaps the least competent war leader in modern history.  Lost a war that almost could not have been lost.  Simply by focusing on human sacrifice rather than just war. 

I see the major war guilt as being with the British.  Many elite families had been infiltrated by the Jewish money-lending class.  Whether its true or false that the elite manipulated the war into being, once it was started it was the British elite that were determined to fight to the bitter end,  rather than fight for an acceptable negotiating position.

Just war theory personified

The adult warrior fights to look after the child. A vision of manhood no Catallaxian human sacrifice advocate could possibly share in.

Consider the implausibility of normal geopolitics as a cause of a war between Germany and Britain.  The British believed themselves to be genetically Germanic.  Angles, Saxons and Jutes.  All Germanic tribes.  They were each-others biggest trading partners.  Plus both royal families were held to be German.   I have my doubts about that.  I suspect that the British royal family were already polluted by Jew genes and Jew loyalties. One country had the greatest navy, the other the most powerful army.  Peace was assured one would think.  The conflict comes when the interests and identity of the elite, particularly a Jewish elite, differ from the interests and identity of a non-Jewish people.

In the Gospel of Saint John, the saviour becomes the personification of the Greek Logos. Catholic Just War theory is an extension of the Greek idea of logos, taken to the problem of international relations. The saviour had no sense of humour towards people who would hurt Christian children. For this reason I would say that the oligarchical families who perpetrated or didn’t stop the incendiary bombing of Germany and Nagasaki need to have their wealth confiscated. And this wealth could then be used as zero interest loans to promote sole trader business.

Now in light of all the above we may link to a few of the insane ideas that Catallaxy had on the fly the last time they started pretending that small and gorgeous asian girls were the enemy.  Just like the rabbi in our story starts calling the calves the enemy and smashing them into the road.

Catholic Just War Theory teaches us how to avoid war,  when to go to war, how to conduct ourselves at war, and also how to win. Here is the thread where these Jews make fools of themselves demanding that we divert resources from winning the war to practice ritual Jew human sacrifice. Which is what World War II was all about. It was just gargantuan culling pretending to be war.

The Jews on Catallaxy (and elsewhere) see other peoples children as “the enemy” in war. Resources are to be taken away from killing regime leadership and destroying military targets to waste on hurting these kids. This is not a valid intellectual point of view. They are the bad guys and someone else is the good guys.

Here is the thread where these idiots run wild. Its not just Dr Beau Gan. Its basically all the Jews on Catallaxy. And its not just one night either. Being in favour of diverting resources from war to terrorism is a longstanding article of faith held with blind ferocity and total consistency for the last 13 years. I didn’t realise that it was a Jew thing for a very long time:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/05/05/open-forum-may-5-2018/comment-page-2/#comments

 

What would Jesus think of the Jew idea of targeting women and children during a war?

“King James Bible
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”


I don’t think he would approve even a little bit.

 

It took a lot of work to make the Japanese our enemy.  A lot of effort.  It is disrespectful to the Jews, communists and oligarchs involved, to play down the years and years of effort that it took to make the Japanese the enemy.  The idea of avenging ourselves against the Japanese for Pearl Harbour is simply nonsensical, given authentic history. 

The universal adoption of Catholic just war theory is absolutely vital to the survival of the species. Since realistic cosmology tells us that a planet only has so much time where it can harbour intelligent life. Catholic just war theory comes directly out of Christianity. So if Jesus Christ did exist he is the saviour of all of us and not just believers in his divinity.

 

 

Just War Applications: Australias Only Prophet On World War One (From Youtube).

You would think the answer was obvious. The world wars were absolute disasters. A lot less money spent on revamping the navy could have kept the islands secure without losing blood. Good lord. Just got to the final vote. These British are horribly brainwashed. Give them any excuse for their past disasters and they’ll go with it.
Paul Marks7 hours agoHighlighted reply
No Sir. If Imperial Germany had been allowed to control all of Europe (including the industrial areas of Russia) they would have built op a navy that would have crushed this island – it would not have been 1940, it would have been much worse than that. I AGREE with you that world wars are disasters – but I suggest that you put your complaint to Germany, which started both of them. For it was Germany that turned a Balkan War into a European and then World War in 1914 – Czar Nicholas and the French government certainly did not want war (the French military modernisation would not have been completed till 1916 – and the Russian one not till 1918, neither France or Russia was prepared for war in 1914). What was the German war aim in 1914? What areas were there inhabited by Germans that they did not already control? Indeed they already controlled large areas that did NOT want to be part of Germany – but they were not satisfied and wanted more. German “Geopolitics” (all the rage in the German universities in 1914) was not even satisfied with controlling Europe – it wanted much more than that.
What complete utter bullshit. Imperial Germany was less unethical than we were. So there aggrandisement was neither here nor there and may have been a positive thing. But any expansion on their part would mean that they were still surrounded by hostiles on all sides. Hence if they expanded beyond any realistically defensible realm they would have continually had their hands full.
This is why the latter career of Bismark was peaceful. He figured he had expanded enough to ensure the survival of Germany. When the three large powers came together and got all chummy then matters changed and Germany could thereafter do with a little more territory in order to be able to deal with the more nasty situation.
So opposing them they had the greatest Empire in the world with the best navy. At one flank they had the second best land army with France. Up above they had the biggest army in the world with Russia. If the three of these people get all cosy against Germany of course the Germans are going to want out of that situation. The active engagement of the Germans in the war, would have depleted them somewhat. So with Britain (then the greatest creditor nation on earth) instead of getting their hands bloody chose to run an arms buildup in response to the continental war …. Under that tactic the British could easily have protected herself, as the continental powers burned up all their men and energy.
Certainly I would not have been opposed to the British engaging in proxy war and the protection of other powers ports as a way of burning up the war energy of Germany. I wasn’t going that far. But the idea is to always try and send your boys home to Mama. Now consider your hypothetical? Is that as bad as what actually happened? The massive spread of Jew influence, the rise of the communist Soviet Union? Tens of millions of people murdered, that plague of communism spread to the most populous nation in the world, the second world war and on and on? Your alleged nightmare world sounds positively dreamy by comparison. We are talking about the worst policy decisions in human history. Your scenario, bad as it may well have been, is bliss in comparison to actual history.
……………………………………
This argument involves a bit of an ambit claim.  In reality I would not have opposed the idea of British soldiers being on the continent.  But if you have Germans on your soil its the responsibility of your boys to face them.  The Brits may train their guys as shock troops.  But to fulfil their commitments in this situation they would then have their shock troops usually doing logistical support rather than being at the sharp end of the spear.  Perhaps there needed to be an exception right at the start to really slow down the German onslaught through Belgium and into France.
A good culturally Christian leader has to send his boys home intact in almost every situation.  This is good strategically since it leaves your men whole.  If your men aren’t locked into the field you can negotiate better, since you still have resources in reserve.  The Germans made all these huge ambit claims that are now used as a justification for fighting them to a standstill.  Taking a more ethical approach to warfare could have left the Brits in a position to negotiate a lot of these demands away, still leaving a slightly aggrandised Germany, which probably would have been a good thing because lets face it Germans were pretty damn awesome.