Yep, as you can see, it's been moved. I hope everybody's OK with the way I've been handling the thread management tool. I'm a little concerned that if I opened up permissions so that more people could move threads around, we'd end up with chaos.
Special Relativity creates Logical Paradoxes & Physical Impossibilities
- Thread starter Claude Badley
- Start date
I wondered why you had not brought up the question of the patent. That is my fault.
Yours faithfully
Claude
I was wrong on one number which is now corrected above.
Yours faithfully
Claude
Yes, Jerry, I accept your first comments above - that the academic viewpoint merely obscures the reality of the Basilides-Saturninus connection, otherwise obvious from the three heresiologists (Irenaeus, Hippolytus & Epiphanius).
As for the last point, indeed I would have accepted your criticism as the underlined point is trite, even bland...
Yours faithfully
Claude
*In Clark's biography of Einstein p. 422 he quotes Einstein's "modest" reply (on the very weekend of the Wall St. Crash in 1929) deflecting a claim as to his greatness.
This is what Einstein (and the original Protestantism of Luther's pessimism and Calvin's optimism) is all about. Tell us that everything is predetermined (so as to absolve himself and his cronies from blame in advance) then speculate to your heart's & wallet's content in finance and physics - then ultimately force the results down the necks of the ignorant masses!
As for the last point, indeed I would have accepted your criticism as the underlined point is trite, even bland...
...but the assertion on your part as to overstatement rests only on your belief in the benignity of Einstein's relativity* and Carrier's presumed ignorance of the details and implications of Einstein's relativity theory, given that it is commonly believed in.
Yours faithfully
Claude
*In Clark's biography of Einstein p. 422 he quotes Einstein's "modest" reply (on the very weekend of the Wall St. Crash in 1929) deflecting a claim as to his greatness.
IOW Einstein does not merely believe the trite observation that "individuals are effected or influenced by their social environment". Rather, Einstein's "intersectionality" is that everything - every human thought, behavior and action - is predetermined by the universe itself (given Einstein's Spinozan atheism). That is why Carrier's pigeon-brained invocation of Einstein's relativity implies much more than the trite comment that you have interpreted it as meaning.Einstein said:
This is what Einstein (and the original Protestantism of Luther's pessimism and Calvin's optimism) is all about. Tell us that everything is predetermined (so as to absolve himself and his cronies from blame in advance) then speculate to your heart's & wallet's content in finance and physics - then ultimately force the results down the necks of the ignorant masses!
This quote exemplifies Einstein's famous rejection of quantum theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It has nothing to do with relativity. Galilean and Newtonian physics were just as deterministic as Einstein's relativistic physics. Whereas nowadays, nobody believes this anymore.Einstein said:
Many different presumptions and claims are evident here.
Type A - local realism (point-particle interpretation of Popper & Einstein)
Type C - Complementarity (Bohr-Heisenberg's dualistic interpretation where wave and particle are two interpretations linked via dialecticism, flipping from one argument to the other while invoking mutually refuting conceptions)
Type B - Nonlocal physical reality (Bohm-Blokhintsev - this being the only correct interpretation since the quantum objects are treated as having extension in space rather than being "probability clouds" and/or point-particles.)
The point-particle type A interpretation is that of Einstein's relativity where everything is reduced to...
Yours faithfully
Claude
Very true, but that is because of the three positions/interpretations of quantum theory, Einstein took to type A, the 'hardball' or point-particle interpretation of quantum theory.
Type A - local realism (point-particle interpretation of Popper & Einstein)
Type C - Complementarity (Bohr-Heisenberg's dualistic interpretation where wave and particle are two interpretations linked via dialecticism, flipping from one argument to the other while invoking mutually refuting conceptions)
Type B - Nonlocal physical reality (Bohm-Blokhintsev - this being the only correct interpretation since the quantum objects are treated as having extension in space rather than being "probability clouds" and/or point-particles.)
The point-particle type A interpretation is that of Einstein's relativity where everything is reduced to...
...abstract dimensionless point-particles. Hence the interpretation of quantum theory has EVERYTHING to do with the perversions of Einstein's relativity since the latter has polluted the former.
False. Galileo's physics was not deterministic since he attributed extension to objects - allowing for internal content and motion in moving objects (e.g. people in ships) - totally unlike Einstein's abstractions. Newton though is ambiguous, since his nonsensical idea of absolute space allowed Einstein to pollute science through justifying time dilation and length contraction (TD & LC) by unphysical applications of abstract mathematics - a situation that you cannot seem to grasp, Jerry.
Yours faithfully
Claude
I can't find any evidence the Blokhintsev endorsed Bohm's view. Bohm's name doesn't even appear in this survey of Blokhintsev's relevant work.
Wikipedia quotes Bohm as arguing that quantum states are deterministic. So, since you are trying to show that the universe is non-deterministic, wouldn't your politics require you to back the Heisenberg interpretation? Isn't it lucky for you that the Bohm interpretation hasn't won much support, inasmuch as no evidence has ever surfaced regarding hidden variables that would allow a deterministic analysis of quantum physics?
What did Galileo say, exactly? Did he believe that "people in ships" posses some quality of will and self-determination, which distinguishes them from mere planets that move mechanistically? I suppose it's possible that this is what he thought, but it's not what people usually mean by Galilean physics.
My "grasp on the situation" indicates that TD & LC are experimentally proven facts, and that Einstein (and other great physicists of his time) showed that they could be modeled and, in a sense, explained by abstract mathematics.
And that you, Mr. Badly, use your denialist position regarding this settled physics, in support of your strange neo-fascist politics.
Last edited:
The reason is that Blokhintsev was older than Bohm and espoused his ideas rather earlier.
Junkipedia wouldn't know...
Your grasp on the facts about SR is woeful...
Philipp Lenard was also a Noble-prizewinner, but he too, saw that Einstein's SR was bunk!
And I have already shown to you that the TD experimental claims are false - due to faulty presumptions and logic - since they do not allow for equal path lengths for the particles to decay, so falsely explain that the particles detected lower in the atmosphere have survived due to TD, rather than admitting that the atmosphere mass-equivalent material (water or iron) is NOT an adequate substitute for the difference in length from the upper atmosphere generation site to the upper detectors and lower detectors, falsifying the claim that the greater detection of particles beneath the covering material (water or iron) is SOLELY due to the relative lack of TD, allowing slower particles through. Rather, the upper detectors should be at the same altitude as the lower detectors but have a vacuum for travel equal in length to the difference in altitude between upper and lower detectors. Only in this way could you even be allowed to suggest a contribution from Einstein's TD. However, the true facts causing the difference in detection rates are two only: the rapid decay rate of such particles (necessitating equal path lengths for genuine experimentation) and the collision with atmospheric particles - and their liquid or solid equivalents - reducing the detection rate at the lower detectors. Einstein's TD is superfluous and nonsensical - like Monty Python's parrot which sits on its perch because it has been nailed there, rather than having flown up of its own free will through genuine scientific endeavor.
Your lack of concentration on the details and so not seeing the difference thus blinds you to the deeper issues of science and philosophy as you are so ready to accept el cheapo answers - such as those served up by Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss.
After all, even George Orwell, a dedicated anti-Fascist who had worked as a policeman in Burma, then part of British India, admitted that a Fascist politics would really work - especially nowadays in that Leninism, Anarchism and Reformism have crumbled or are crumbling across the world.
Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
PS: Perhaps I need to add here that the issues are not the seemingly abstract and trivial ones about mutually moving clocks and rods but the very nature of space and time - fundamental conditions of our very existence! Any correct scientific understanding of the world cannot afford to allow space and time to be degraded to mere 'manifestations' of matter - i.e. the fraud of ontological monism, the notion that materialist philosophy means that everything is reduced to ONE thing, matter.
Space and time are each ontologically separate from matter. Matter is in space which in turn is in time: this fundamental principle (two principles - one re space, one re time) have been utterly discarded by Einstein's sophistry and replaced by the Spinozan (i.e. modern Jewish) pantheist fantasy whereby everything is predetermined and thus has no cause at all since whatever happens is arbitrary anyway and hence fundamentally incomprehensible. By surrendering to Einstein's BS without thinking about it, you have already given up the political struggle - just as the modern Marxists have with their preaching of proletarian egalitarianism - since you cannot think clearly to begin with.
Bohm was an American working on QT (quantum theory). He could read Russian though Blokhintsev later said that Bohm's work was original and that he Blokhintsev had little influence. Bohm was in turmoil at the time - accused and convicted by the Un-American Activities Committee, stripped of his citizenship and dumped on a one-way flight to Sao Paulo!
Junkipedia wouldn't know...
...since it confuses the two types of "hidden variable" interpretations, the Popper-Einstein point-particle type A interpretation, with the type B (Bohm-Blokhintsev) interpretation which is non-deterministic but causal. (Bohm's determinism rather resides in his later silly notion of the 'Implicate Order', a way to try to avoid the indeterminism inherent in QT) The Heisenberg interpretation - by which words you presumably mean the Copenhagen Interpretation (type C) - is agnostic on the question since it DENIES any deeper physical reality, asserting instead that "the maths" is all there is, opening the way to arbitrariness and acausality.
Many people even in his day thought of the planets as gods, their motion relative to the stars evidence of their freely-caused motion. Galileo did not obsess on the issue whether such planets had inhabitants - since the Earth itself does not have a mind to think with - but he certainly accepted that people had agency i.e. so-called "Free will" and self-determination, such that they were not puppets predetermined by the motion of the universe as a whole.
Your grasp on the facts about SR is woeful...
...especially as there is no experimental proof for LC whatsoever, just a false logical trail extending from Newton's absolute space to the stagnant aether, these invoking absolute motion whose nonexistence proven by the MMX is then reinterpreted by invoking LC (in order to retain the BS of "absolute motion", a "materialist" substitute for God). The mathematical extension of this by Poincare was to invoke TD, creating yet more complications such as, for two mutually moving clocks: "clock A is slower than clock B" yet "clock B is slower than clock A". And you call abstract paradoxical tripe like that 'genuine science'????????!!!!!!!!!!!
Philipp Lenard was also a Noble-prizewinner, but he too, saw that Einstein's SR was bunk!
And I have already shown to you that the TD experimental claims are false - due to faulty presumptions and logic - since they do not allow for equal path lengths for the particles to decay, so falsely explain that the particles detected lower in the atmosphere have survived due to TD, rather than admitting that the atmosphere mass-equivalent material (water or iron) is NOT an adequate substitute for the difference in length from the upper atmosphere generation site to the upper detectors and lower detectors, falsifying the claim that the greater detection of particles beneath the covering material (water or iron) is SOLELY due to the relative lack of TD, allowing slower particles through. Rather, the upper detectors should be at the same altitude as the lower detectors but have a vacuum for travel equal in length to the difference in altitude between upper and lower detectors. Only in this way could you even be allowed to suggest a contribution from Einstein's TD. However, the true facts causing the difference in detection rates are two only: the rapid decay rate of such particles (necessitating equal path lengths for genuine experimentation) and the collision with atmospheric particles - and their liquid or solid equivalents - reducing the detection rate at the lower detectors. Einstein's TD is superfluous and nonsensical - like Monty Python's parrot which sits on its perch because it has been nailed there, rather than having flown up of its own free will through genuine scientific endeavor.
Your lack of concentration on the details and so not seeing the difference thus blinds you to the deeper issues of science and philosophy as you are so ready to accept el cheapo answers - such as those served up by Noam Chomsky and Lawrence Krauss.
Because the left's claims of fundamental human equality are also superfluous and nonsensical when one attempts to create a practical politics, serving only to confuse and disempower rather than elucidate.
After all, even George Orwell, a dedicated anti-Fascist who had worked as a policeman in Burma, then part of British India, admitted that a Fascist politics would really work - especially nowadays in that Leninism, Anarchism and Reformism have crumbled or are crumbling across the world.
Now you see that Hitler lost ONLY because of his racism (i.e. specifically in not supporting Ukrainian rebels and General Vlasov) - which is also the reason the Far Right is losing in the USA. But education will eventually overcome this block - while the Left babble on incoherently, inside and outside the debate controlled by the Frank'n'Furtive School's graduates: i.e. the Cultural Marxist Clown College (a.k.a. Bonko Halal for subverting NOI members).Orwell-Lion&Unicorn said:
Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
PS: Perhaps I need to add here that the issues are not the seemingly abstract and trivial ones about mutually moving clocks and rods but the very nature of space and time - fundamental conditions of our very existence! Any correct scientific understanding of the world cannot afford to allow space and time to be degraded to mere 'manifestations' of matter - i.e. the fraud of ontological monism, the notion that materialist philosophy means that everything is reduced to ONE thing, matter.
Space and time are each ontologically separate from matter. Matter is in space which in turn is in time: this fundamental principle (two principles - one re space, one re time) have been utterly discarded by Einstein's sophistry and replaced by the Spinozan (i.e. modern Jewish) pantheist fantasy whereby everything is predetermined and thus has no cause at all since whatever happens is arbitrary anyway and hence fundamentally incomprehensible. By surrendering to Einstein's BS without thinking about it, you have already given up the political struggle - just as the modern Marxists have with their preaching of proletarian egalitarianism - since you cannot think clearly to begin with.
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
As you have presented it here, this is a non sequitur, as Hitler lost for other reasons, among which was that his professional general corps understood that his victory was impossible to achieve, Ukrainians or not. Hitler's surface motivations were only that, crass manipulation as a cover story to achieve what was achieved ... modern Israel, the EU, and the next alignment of the chessboard.
There is no such thing as settled science, only the political sciences du jour, like perversely calling people who believe in climate change Climate Change Deniers, or stating that relatively Cold Fusion is fake, when clearly it is not so. Cold Fusion was labeled so because of political and financial reasons.
Cosmology is in crisis today because the latest rabbit hole fad paradigms, such as dark matter and energy, are being shown to be untenable.
What is NOI?
Since you are admittedly not of pure and lofty blood Mr. Badley, what caste will you attain to? What caste was that fucking drug addled moron, sex pervert, con man, Adolf Hitler part of? Albeit he did achieve his assigned task, I'll give him that much.
It 'works' because it is 1) planned, and 2) it is designed to achieve world-conquest?Orwell-Lion&Unicorn said:
What is the difference here between these and apparently you versus the Zionists? I would say that you are a crypto-Zionist, as well as a crypto-Catholic. For aren't you merely advocating for a return to the feudal caste system of the ancien regime? Are your Mandaean friends of this persuasion as well?
In America, at least, there is the acronym TMI, for Too Much Information. This above is TMI for your propaganda efforts here.
Who is better qualified to say what the Bohm interpretation is, than Bohm himself? If he characterizes his view as "determinism" what gives you the right to gainsay him, at the same time as you rely on his authority?
This would be the Mermin-Dirac-Feynman "instrumentalist interpretation", i.e. Shut Up And Calculate. It's a joke, in other words. "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!!"
Funny you should mention Hitler's "Chief of Aryan Physics", who was obviously blinded by his hatred of "Jewish science". Is this the best you can come up with by way of an authority for your views?
No, you have made this claim, and I disagreed. I briefly explained my reasoning above in these posts:
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/special-relativity-creates-logical-paradoxes-physical-impossibilities.2569/post-13479
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/special-relativity-creates-logical-paradoxes-physical-impossibilities.2569/post-13514
I'm comfortable with my own understanding that the experimental claims for TD are probably valid, although I concede that reaching this conclusion requires a certain level of arrogance on my part.
I simply don't believe it's worth my time to follow you further down this rabbit hole.
However, for the sake of discussion I would concede to "agree to disagree", and see where you're going with this.
We both know full well that the term "Climate Change Denier" refers to persons who deny the reality and/or importance of MMGW. In common usage, it has nothing to do with a person's view about naturally occurring climate change, which is not denied by anybody. So I don't understand why you're still beating this dead horse.
I've certainly argued strenuously, at this website, that Cold Fusion is a reality. But I wouldn't go jumping to the conclusion that the arguments I've presented are correct!! I feel that this material is very speculative, and ultimately I'm not sure whether the theory and experimental results are true or not.
What about the spherical earth? Are you abandoning that?
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I was just seeing if you were awake.
And, I was too lazy to elaborate more. I felt justified after watching some Nobel Prize winner from Cambridge(?) say that, but he was referring to the extremes of physical phenomenology, and no doubt Climate Science (if I properly read his mind).
We know that now ... as in Now. But you were recently claiming that many scientists were such deniers when clearly they weren't. The term was employed to smear people so as to garner support from the peanut gallery.
I don't recall what you're referring to here.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
You were complaining to me that certain skeptic scientists didn't believe in climate change, when clearly they did. The only pertinent issues are (1) the extent to which CO2 is responsible for whatever warming has (2) actually occurred recently, versus (3) other IPCC ignored causes of 'change'.
What amazes me here is that despite Claude's and your differences on Einstein and such, that you both ended up on the same side of this intersectional issue. I'm guessing that Claude will answer that you have somehow made two serial errors to arrive at the same position as he has, while I have made either one or three to arrive at the opposition.
Or, does this merely disprove his overarching thesis of ontological dependence?
Nobody really knows what an atom is, or its quirky quarks, or gravity, or how a photon can be particle yet with no mass. Maybe Hubble was right to suspect the Red Shift? Maybe the noise in the MMX was not noise, but signal?
What amazes me here is that despite Claude's and your differences on Einstein and such, that you both ended up on the same side of this intersectional issue. I'm guessing that Claude will answer that you have somehow made two serial errors to arrive at the same position as he has, while I have made either one or three to arrive at the opposition.
Or, does this merely disprove his overarching thesis of ontological dependence?
Nobody really knows what an atom is, or its quirky quarks, or gravity, or how a photon can be particle yet with no mass. Maybe Hubble was right to suspect the Red Shift? Maybe the noise in the MMX was not noise, but signal?
I believe you called me out very early on for using the word "denier", and I've been scrupulously using "skeptic" since then, except perhaps in certain egregious cases. I don't really want to read through the whole thread to search for instances where I might have sinned in using the terminology inappropriately.
And as you know, regarding the "pertinent issues", I've argued that (2) there has indeed been measurable warming; that (1) industrial release of CO2 is largely if not entirely responsible; and (3) that changes in solar insolation or solar wind are highly unlikely causal factors; we haven't experienced any major volcanic events or asteroid strikes lately; and other archaeologically significant factors such as Milankovitch would seem to be pointing in the opposite direction, towards a new ice age, if anything. Does that cover it? If someone argues against these three key planks of the MMGW theory, I call them a skeptic when it comes to MMGW.
What would it mean to "really know" these things? Yet the concepts are amazingly useful.
You're starting to get above my pay grade here. According to this paper by Sandage (cited in Wishy-Washy Pedia) Hubble claimed that the universe was expanding in a 1929 paper which almost everyone in science accepted immediately, yet Hubble himself backtracked and argued after 1936 that the universe might be stable after all, in which case the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature." And it doesn't seem that he convinced anyone else. So maybe he was right at first, and maybe he was right later.
Do we claim to have enough bandwidth here to solve every scientific mystery? Is this relevant to Relativity, or is it a what-about-ism?
Isn't this a statistics problem, to separate the noise from the signal? Where is the basis for second-guessing this?
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
See, you just changed the goal posts again. You've gone from climate change back to, not only global warming, but man-made global warming. I'm going to post something on the Globalist Warming thread about the admitted lack of lead versus lag correlation between CO2 levels and temperature where special pleading is invoked to claim that pokey Mr. Milankovich somehow tells CO2 to claim responsibility for heating that took place centuries to thousands of years later upon entering a new interglacial period.
Yes, these inferential models are indeed useful, but should not be considered 'settled". Such is why Newton's Laws are not really 'laws', but rather model descriptions - that were found to need revision.
No, I personally don't have enough bandwidth left, and as we've discussed beofre I regret having added such a broad scope of topics to the forum. It's all relevant in the sense of the matter of what is settled. I'm not so certain that people like Tesla weren't correct when it comes to the aether.
No, this is not a classical case of examining a data set and separating the noise from the signal. We are talking about the interpretation of the bends in the graph line at both extremes. If one can casually dismiss them as noise, then you get our present cosmology, but if they are signal then we must trash our current cosmology. To me, and others the 'noise' looks like signal -- which should never have been dismissed.
I believe I've always been arguing that man-made global warming is a highly likely conclusion. I'm sorry if I've ever given any impression to the contrary.
As to skeptics, they come in all flavors. Some accept that MMGW is taking place, but think it's either a good thing, or not very important. Some accept that warming is taking place, but deny that it's man made. And then there are those that don't believe that warming is taking place at all, or who don't think that global average temperature is a coherent or meaningful concept.
As to skeptics who deny that the climate ever changes at all, I can't think of a single living example.
I would say that Newton's Laws are perfectly valid within a limited scope.
Sadly, I have no idea what you're talking about.
The other reasons are subsidiary...
Yours faithfully
Claude
...since while you are right that the armed forces leaders understood that victory was impossible they could not carry out effective means to get rid of him - or rather, too little, too late. His racism certainly made him a puppet of the West - leading to the Zionist state etc. in response.
Some science is settled e.g. the stable elements of the Periodic Table. Political science is not so of course especially as what one calls science another does not.
Very true, but the key piece of lies is Einstein's special relativity (SR), in turn based on the erroneous conceptions of TD & LC which arise from the mistaken notions of the stagnant aether = Newton's absolute space.
The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X's old outfit, until he was driven out and later shot by one of them almost certainly assisted by secret US Gov't forces. Why? Malcolm X was too smart for them so they had to stop him getting smarter.
Assigned task by the West - for sure he did! But the new understanding shows that many people will understand that they have a certain mental tendency (character) which befits them for certain roles. Not everyone wants to be Fuehrer - contra the old joke about the Far Right.
It will conquer the world because people will see that it works and want to imitate it since "together we are stronger" - as the basic Fascist principle teaches.
Not the Mandaeans - they are but a tiny persecuted sect not interested in politics. Zionist has a crypto-racist policy (not so crypto now), Catholicism but a religious bigotry. Any form of effective elective caste system is not either of these - nevertheless, the Jews' egalitarianism and the Catholic hierarchy each demonstrate important principles for caste solidarity and hierarchical governance respectively.
How dare you put yourself down like that, Richard!!!!!!!
Yours faithfully
Claude
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I already addressed this matter (no pun intended) with Jerry. But in any case, you and he are yet confused over the 'relative' and globalist role of carbon and oxygen compared to cosmic forcings.
So, you agree Science is not settled.
I had hoped that my prior reply to you on this issue would have caused you to ponder the errors of your illogic on this matter. However imperfect American ideals have been implemented they do allow for an individual to rise or lower himself to his desired level. Not everyone wants to be President, or dog catcher.
The USA strongly incorporates the imagery of the Roman fasces, and some guy once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." But now you had recently advanced a orange dyed man-child as the latest savior of the West, another puppet of the same PTB that foisted Hitler upon the world.
And yet your racism is benign by comparison, your lifetime dispensation of the genes?
Re "cosmic forcings" relative to increased CO2 on Earth - and CH4 too as a more difficult matter to quantify...
The American ideals - i.e. Liberal (Libertarian) ideals - are perverse in themselves, not merely in their implementation.
It took them 70 years to wake up, but, as Slezkine vividly demonstrates, the Russians are no longer the dumb tool of socialist-Zionist types. That dumb tool role today is fulfilled by the USA where the elite are instead capitalist-Zionist types (the socialist-Zionist types in the UK having just recently fractured under the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, showing that perhaps even the British might wake up eventually).
Yours faithfully
Claude
...one great cosmic forcer is Piers Corbyn, brother of the defeated BLP leader. Like the traditional Left - on the way out.
Mostly not, not only because of new fields of study but because philosophy intrudes into science, and not just because of human choice in the "mind sciences" (Geisteswissenschaften). Nevertheless it is not a case of anything goes since some issues are firmly settled, and not just the arrangement of the Periodic Table.
You are describing an idealized situation here - one from the Horace Greeley century "go West young man" (or the Nazi's Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht's "go East meine Juenger") and from the Embedded Liberal Era of the 30 years from 1948-1978. American ideals today DO NOT allow for an individual to raise or lower himself but rather, only the rich are permitted this as an indulgence; the poor are trapped in permanent poverty while the ultra-rich (mainly Anglos & Jews - but also token characters such as Oprah) maintain their rule through policies such as the sexual debasement of the masses, achieved via the Frankfurt School.
The American ideals - i.e. Liberal (Libertarian) ideals - are perverse in themselves, not merely in their implementation.
But those who voted for "the orange haired man-child" are now turning to White Pride organizations since Trump has betrayed them to the Zionists, even though Trump doesn't want WW3. This is why the Democrats want Trump impeached - the Democrats are even more Zionist tools and hope to inaugurate a fully Zionist president who will encourage war with Iran on Israel's behalf. Hence I have to laugh with your last comment!
A very good source for what I am saying here is Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century, (Princeton, 2019 with new preface) as he traces out the Russian Revolution and the Russians' then love of Judaism, Jews and Russians co-identifying under Marxist policies. Only after the Nazi invasion revealed massive hidden anti-Jewish sentiment e.g. Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine etc. and particularly Soviet support for the declaration of Israel, did the Russians rediscover their ethnicity and culture and thus wake up to their being manipulated - hence the mass migration of Jews from Russia.
It took them 70 years to wake up, but, as Slezkine vividly demonstrates, the Russians are no longer the dumb tool of socialist-Zionist types. That dumb tool role today is fulfilled by the USA where the elite are instead capitalist-Zionist types (the socialist-Zionist types in the UK having just recently fractured under the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, showing that perhaps even the British might wake up eventually).
Yours faithfully
Claude
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Says you. All one needs to do to disprove your thesis, Einstein or not, is to look at a graph of temperature versus CO2 prior to the alarmist period of the last 50 years. Prior to the Little Ice Age the temperature was warmer than now, and no appreciable extinctions to boot.
As for CH4:
Abstract
Because methane has an initial GWP (global warming potential) 120x that of carbon dioxide, concern about leaked “fugitive” methane often dominates discussions of natural gas policy. But this high GWP can easily be misinterpreted to conclude that natural gas is a much greater greenhouse danger when used for electric power generation vs. coal. In determining policy, particularly with regard to legacy issues (global warming for future generations) it is essential to take full account of the short 8.6-year lifetime of methane in the atmosphere. Moreover, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change use of time “horizon” must be understood properly; it refers to an average from the present, not a time that lies in the future. The IPCC GWP value cannot be used directly to estimate the effect unless careful account is taken of the lighter weight of the methane molecule compared to that of carbon dioxide. We discusses several ways to take these issues into account, and show that for a wide range of leakages and legacy goals, fugitive methane is typically not a critical issue, and that even with a few percent leakage, natural gas is preferable to coal for legacy global warming considerations.
You do realize that you just reiterated my statement there, and my positions more generally. For what purpose, to waste my time?
This is incoherent, and I have to laugh at your every sentence. First of all, his whole body is sprayed with a special European orange dye, not just his hair. How do you know whether he doesn't want WWIII or not? Once again, you are trying to pawn off surface narrative as reality.
The only thing definitive one can say about Trump, beyond his surface personal transactionality, is that he is a political opportunist, operating either on his own interests or that of his Georgetown cabal of chaos handlers in the White House.
I'm not really sure that you believe anything you say.
Nice specific pivot from my much more general comment on racism generally. You must be much more ideologically closer to Miss Kitty than we had initially figured.
Right, the Russians are no longer the tools of the socialist-Zionist types, they are now the tools of Russian Orthodox apocalypticists, whom engage in circular anal sex with Vlad the Impaler. Your globo-fascism is just another stepping-stone facet of the same manipulation, and as such, I think I should start addressing you as Father Luke, the globe trotting physician/cleric of Paul's.
Global warming is now rampant - and correlates with the massive CO2 increase, especially from 1977
Greenland nowadays is warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period.
Yours faithfully
Claude
PS: Closer to Miss Kitty? Hasn't she had a fling with Schrodinger's Cat? - i.e. I don't know whether she's alive or dead re this website!
If you mean the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period, no, it is hotter now. Perhaps only in the UK, where the weather is still not quite right for ripening grapes, might you claim that the Medieval & Roman Warm Periods were warmer.
Greenland nowadays is warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period.
The statement is correct, but the actual proportion of global warming due to CH4 is harder to assess. Perhaps it is a useless task even, since we are trapped in man-made global warming and have to replace hydrocarbon energy to get rid of excesses of both CO2 and CH4.
Yours faithfully
Claude
PS: Closer to Miss Kitty? Hasn't she had a fling with Schrodinger's Cat?
- i.e. I don't know whether she's alive or dead re this website!