It appears that one of the aspects of this blog that appeals to many of you is when I make an observation or deduction that…
- Is absolutely, pretty much inarguably, true, and…
- Is absolutely, pretty much inarguably, contrary to what we are told by the various arms of the PTB.
- There is no # 3. 1 and 2 are all we need. (As a shorthand I call the stuff referred to in #2 ‘bullshit’. (by the way, it’s nice that I don’t any longer get a little red line/spelling correction under ‘bullshit’; the term has apparently been (grudgingly) accepted by the PTB as part of the vernacular.)
We won’t need this stuff today. Just common sense.
So okay. I do have a list of bullshit, but how to work it all in to this blog organically? I mean, where do I start? Conveniently, we have occasional commenters that, IMO, are working for the PTB and who come here to misdirect the conversation. But even if this is not the case, we still have a spring board to discussing HTWRW.
A commenter calling himself ‘Joe’ (whom I suspect is somehow related to ‘Sean’ from past posts) writes in the last post — presumably to ‘correct’ everything I wrote — the following:
Gas in an atmosphere will dissipate equally as you outline. But in a vacuum the strongest force at work is gravity which is an attractive force. Over enough time and with enough mass/atoms stars form. Those stars eventually die, the large ones explode and create the higher order elements that exist in the universe. It’s a byproduct of The fusion reaction and it’s been replicated on earth. Hydrogen bombs operate on fusion reaction. The really big stars are believed to collapse into black holes when they die. This is the generally accepted theory in science. It may not be 100% accurate or complete but the math and experimental evidence does support it.
Looks like something out of ‘Aliens’, right? No, it’s the best we can do to make a fusion reaction. And since the 1950s, it HAS NOT WORKED.
I say comments like this are ‘convenient’ because everything Joe writes here is high on my list of bullshit. And it’s all important stuff! (Joe’s paragraph would elicit a nod from virtually every scientist or academic on the planet. Mmmm! Oh, boy!)
Addendum: Joe’s comment also made me laugh, for this reason: It appears that he’s sort of given up. I mean it’s like he’s doing his job here, but by rote. He’s phoning it in, i.e., not even trying. No insults or explanations at all. Just weak and bald assertions. It’s like he sighed and ‘got on with his job’ – meaning repeating the mainstream bullshit — knowing it wasn’t going to fly here. (I don’t think ‘Joe’ is a bot, but only because a bot would try harder.)
A ‘fusion reactor.’ Trying to reproduce what they think goes on in the sun. What fools these mortals be!
According to mainstream (big bang) science, the first element to form when the universe cooled down a bit was hydrogen. In fact, aside from a bit of lithium (a tiny bit) hydrogen was all we had. It’s the simplest and lightest of the known elements. Now, according to Joe (and the mainstream), when hydrogen gets really hot and compressed it forms helium, the next lightest and simplest element. In the process a whole lot of energy is released. This is a ‘fusion’ reaction. This is what powers our sun and all the stars. This is what we’re told. It’s bullshit, as we’ll see.
Addendum: A ‘fission’ reaction is when an atom splits, likewise producing energy; the ‘atomic’ bombs that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission reactions (fission reactions are the type used in nuclear power plants). The ‘H-bomb’ is a fusion reaction and, again, as we’re told, is the energy-producing reaction deep inside our sun and indeed in all stars. But unlike an H-bomb, the fusion reaction inside our sun (we’re told) just keeps on giving. It is, in effect, a controlled reaction.
‘A system can not do work on itself.’ The sun knows this. Why doesn’t this guy?
According to the PTB (and ‘Joe’, their mouthpiece here for now), if we can harness the fusion of hydrogen (as in our sun and all stars), we would have ‘free energy,’ since hydrogen is so common here on earth (water is two hydrogen atoms, plus one of oxygen). Joe says we have created controlled fusion reaction here on earth. This is one of the many lies in Joe’s paragraph. Well, okay, it’s more of a de facto lie than an outright one. See, the PTB have been misdirecting us about free energy for almost a century, by continually claiming that fusion energy is just ‘around the corner’ (30 – 40 years ‘from now’ is the common claim, repeated down the decades). Check out this video and pay attention. This one is good too.
The point of these videos (and why Joe is lying) is that it takes more energy to create a fusion reaction than you get out of it. And this has been going on since the 1950s. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on fusion research. (Take a gander at the video links! They are… staggering in their implications!) And they can’t seem to figure out why it isn’t working. Well, as an answer to Joe’s untruth-laden comment, I’m going to spill the beans on why it hasn’t worked, and never will: The sun is not powered by a fusion reaction. Ditto all the stars in the heavens. So they are tying to recreate something that does not exist.
Addendum: To put it another way, do you think the sun would be involved in a process of energy creation wherein you have to put more energy in than you get as an end result? Would nature do that? I don’t think so!
Isn’t it amazing that you can come to this Mickey Mouse blog of mine and hear a truth of this importance? It’s a mind blower!
All those brilliant science gatekeepers you see on YT? When it comes to the sun, the are ‘Not even wrong’!
But can I prove what I’m saying? That the sun and stars are not powered by internal fusion reactions? Well, let’s give common sense a try.
Regarding star formation, ‘Joe’ agrees that gas will disperse in a room, as in my soda bottle example. Then he says this: ‘But in a vacuum the strongest force at work is gravity which is an attractive force.’ (And indeed, this is what mainstream physics will tell you. Joe has gotten his talking points right.)
Mmmm. Let’s think about this. In fact, let’s do a Net search for ‘Why does gas expand in a vacuum’ and see what we get…
Try this, from… Forbes Magazine! As mainstream as you can get! I’ll paste it in:
Imagine we raise the partition: The gas molecules expand to fill the larger space. Simple, right. Poof, there goes star formation!
‘Imagine you have a jar of air. Inside the jar are a bunch of air molecules and each of those air molecules has energy. They are constantly bouncing around the jar. They bounce off of each other and they bounce off of the sides or the jar. The average speed of an air molecule, at room temperature and pressure is 500 meters per second. That means the average air molecule, unobstructed, could travel the length of four and a half soccer fields in a single second.
Now imagine we transfer that same quantity of air into a larger jar. Each molecule is still buzzing around, bouncing off of other molecules and off of the sides of the jar. The volume of the gas has increased and its density has decreased.
Let’s make the jar bigger again.
Again, those air molecules are still bouncing around at high speed. There is more space available now, so they hit each other a bit less often, but they still bounce off of the sides and change direction. If this jar is about a meter across, then each molecule can bounce off of up to 500 sides in a single second. We can keep making the jar bigger, and they’ll keep bouncing.
So, let’s just delete the jar.
We’re looking at empty space because the air molecules have all, with no boundaries to stop them, expanded off of the screen.’ [Yes, the above is similar to my ‘soda bottle in a room’ tale. Great minds think alike!]
In other words, the gas cloud in a vacuum will disperse into the void, which is the opposite of ‘collapsing’ (to form a star).
Imagine little arrows pointing inward towards the centers of the molecules, then try to find the ‘center of mass’ of the cloud.
Seems like you’re wrong, Joe (as is everyone else in mainstream physics).
Let’s look at it from another angle: According to Joe’s theory, gravity must be the sum of the ‘gravities’ of all the gas molecules, right? If you picture a ‘cloud’ of molecules, each molecule is a source of gravity; ‘the cloud’ itself does not have gravity, except as the sum of the gravity of each individual gas molecule. This is common sense. Now look at the diagram with the little O’s representing molecules in a vacuum. Now picture little arrows around each O, pointing in, toward the center of the molecule (the ‘O’). This represents the gravity in a cloud of gas molecules. (The gravity of each molecule would be infinitesimally small, by the way; almost nonexistent. I’m just playing along with Joe’s ‘logic’. In point of fact, molecular motion is billions of times stronger than the gravity of any molecule.)
Now, looking at this cloud, Joe, please explain how gravity would cause it to collapse ‘inward’.
You know, I think I’ve just double disproved the ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation! Wild, no? Right here on this little blog!
But let’s have someone smarter than me prove it. I’ve taken a bit from the end of a lecture by Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Please watch and notice his frustration right at the very end, when he finishing responding to a question our friend ‘Joe’ might have asked.
You can hear it in his voice there at the end, how upset he is to have gotten a question like the one he answered, from a scientist-colleague. See, when Dr. Robitaille refers to the laws of thermodynamics, he is really referring to common sense, as in the expanding gas example I gave. That modern physics is running afoul of common sense is very frustrating to this learned man, and he has sacrificed a lot to try to straighten out his colleagues. He’s having a hard time. So am I.
I ask you to now go to the full lecture for a more technical debunking of the ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation. Hell, I’ll make it even easier and embed it here:
Addendum: If you listen to Dr. Robitaille’s talk you will hear him use the words ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ in describing properties used in physics equations. Now it’s easy to get lost here if you’re not a physicist. But it’s really pretty simple. Consider these two properties to be like units of measurement. Feet as opposed to meters, say. Dr. R is merely saying, in effect, that if you use meters on one side of an equation, you have to use meters on the other side. You can’t mix feet with meters in an equation and expect to get the right answer. Or even simpler, we could use the ‘apples and oranges’ comparison. Okay? Okay. Now listen to the man. He’s not only brilliant but very courageous – like the kid in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes.’
The ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation is what 99.9% of astronomers and cosmologists currently believe. Utter, complete nonsense. In other words, they are clueless as to the true nature of our very own sun! Yes, I’m going to use that word again: Implications!
I’ll add a ‘masonic floor’ to each post. This is from Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln.’ Trying to tell us something about ol’ Honest Abe, Stevie?
I’ll be back soon with more to say about HTWRW.
Allan
One of the things you might be wondering (and I hope you are) is how it could be that Forbes Magazine — which is as mainstream as you can get — could publish a scientific truth that puts the lie to the standard model of star formation, which is part of the very bedrock of modern science. Well, a better question is How does all of academia believe in the standard model to begin with? Answer one question and you’ve gotten to the root of it.
I mean: Is it really as simple as I make it out here? Because if it is this simple, it would seem to follow that we have a major problem with human nature. All I can say after some serious looking is that it pretty much is this simple, and yes we do have a major, major problem with human nature. It’s this problem that will likely equal the end of our species.
Shit. I still have not gotten around to why Possible Minds aggravated me…
We’re not following your arguments. We “reject” the math exactly as we would if you wrote in Aramaic instead of Math: it’s a language we don’t speak. When we say, “This doesn’t make sense” (gravitational collapse, for one — we’re asked to believe, e.g., that gravity can do from without what the strong force cannot do from within), you don’t address the contradiction — at least, not in English.
As far as I can tell (which may not be far), you yourself don’t understand what you are promoting, and your argument seems to boil down to, “Trust them, they’re experts! Their math works!”
Now you’re whining that we’re chasing away a disagreement. No, we’re chasing away one who is at best an incompetent teacher — and that’s not meant as an ad-hominem, but as an observation of your inability to convey meaning; it’s OK, as teaching is a gift that not everybody has. But the whine perverts this from merely “can’t teach” to “can’t teach and blames the student for the failure.” The thing about being an adult student is, we don’t have to swallow that.
Whoops, sorry, Allan — this wasn’t addressed to you!
mellyrn, i’ve banned that guy, I hope, and a couple others. As my next post will show, he had another email address ready to go to continue his misdirection/deceit. I consider this to be the last straw, in terms of proof that he is a govt scumbag. Give me a day or two to do a post. It’s actually a revealing situation. (He’ll be back under a different name but I’m doing the best I can.)
Alan, why is there no REPLY box to this? I would love to reply.
Allan Weisbecker
May 18, 2019 at 4:21 am
The takeaway from our conversation is this: I am able to change my view on a subject when I come across new evidence, while you are not.
I did ask you to explain Chomsky’s views on 9/11 and JFK but you remain silent, and merely repeat yourself. Why is that? Answer this one or remain silent, please.
BTW, you never asked me to explain Chomsky’s views on JFK and 9/11. As I see it, that is up to Chomsky.
You can either accept or reject what he has to say on such matters, but please don’t put forth the BS that he is an “agent of the deep state.”
I’m still waiting to hear the evidence supporting such an absurd idea.
Pax,
Bill
You’ve exposed yourself for what you really are:
‘BTW, you never asked me to explain Chomsky’s views on JFK and 9/11. As I see it, that is up to Chomsky.’
Not only did i ask you, but I repeated it:
‘Before you aggravate me with a repetition of your question: How do you explain Chomsky’s ‘it’s a conspiracy theory’ re 9/11 (Zinn too)? A quirk. Yes, Chomsky still says very true and valuable things, but how the fuck do you trust him?’
and
‘I did ask you to explain Chomsky’s views on 9/11 and JFK but you remain silent, and merely repeat yourself. Why is that? Answer this one or remain silent, please.’
Sorry to use an ad hominem but it does apply here: You fucking idiot, the evidence IS his views on 9/11 and JFK. If you’d paid attention at all here you would know how and why I make judgements on media gatekeepers.
Have you ever thought of how many otherwise smart people believe the official fictions of 9/11 and JFK because ‘Chomsky said so and so’? Do you? I guess not.
If Chomsky isn’t a mole/shill then he is a doublethinking moron. Take your pick. Either way his damage has been incalculable. Hear me?
I’m done with you. Ask the same stupid question one more time and you’ll join the ranks of the banned. I don’t put up with people here who cannot think for themselves.
“I did ask you to explain Chomsky’s views on 9/11 and JFK but you remain silent, and merely repeat yourself. Why is that? Answer this one or remain silent, please.” – A. Weisbecker
Alan, I have answered, and will attempt to do so once again.
It is up to Noam Chomsky (not me) to “explain” his views on the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, which he has done in his own writings and interviews. Here are some of his own words on the issue of JFK’s assassination:
http://22november1963.org.uk/noam-chomsky-jfk-assassination
The celebrated linguist’s views on the matter clearly conflict with your own grand conspiratorial views, which is fine. I do not see eye to eye with Chomsky either, at least on this issue. However, just because the man shares a different perspective than you on the aforementioned historical events does not mean that he is an “agent of the deep state,” something you suggested in the Sam Harris article when you juxtaposed images of Chomsy and Harris with a caption that read: …”Chomsky is another one (like Harris)…”
Chomsky is one of the great scientific and philosophical minds of the last century. He has authored over 100 books and 300 articles during his lifetime, many of them exposing the numerous big lies perpetrated by the U.S. military-industrial-media complex, especially since WWII. His voluminous body of work, which is based on a foundation of critical thought and empirical evidence, is quite impressive.
Meanwhile, you (and others of your ilk, like ‘le berger des photons’) choose to level absurd ad hominem attacks on a man who has been a steady voice of reason and conscience in the modern world. What’s more, you have also failed to provide a scintilla of evidence supporting the ludicrous idea that he is an “agent of the deep state.”
In your essay, Orwell’s Optimism, you even went so far as to conclude that Chomsky, who is arguably one of the sanest men on the planet, is “insane.”
Alan, have you ever heard of the psychological defense mechanism called projection?
We have quite the nest of busy little govt mole/shill bees leaving comments today, don’t we. Makes my heart soar like an eagle to see how much ‘resources’ they bother to put into my little blog. Yep, I must be over the target, as the saying goes.
One of my favorite ‘tells’ is the use of pseudo-scientific jargon, that attempts to make you feel dumb, give up, and say, ‘He must be really smart.’ We sure have that here, plus the implied question, ‘Why would these geniuses burn so much time composing erudite-sounding ‘debunking’ of little ‘old’ (literally, yes) Allan?
It’s also nice that if they are here, they can’t be doing mischief somewhere else, where the readers are maybe not as smart as the ones here. (I’m busy looking at a houseboat today, boys, so have fun, do your ‘jobs’ and continue pretending that no one knows What you are.)
Alan, I’m glad you think I am a “fucking idiot” who cannot think for himself. As I see it, ad hominem attacks on those who you do not agree with are a defensive strategy that shows your true colors, and will ultimately get you nowhere in the quest for truth, except maybe in the eyes your devoted blog followers.
It strikes me that you have a little ‘Weisbecker cult’ going on here. All I can say is best wishes in promoting conspiratorial nonsense like your views on the NASA moon landings, the 9/11 attack, Sandy Hook shootings, Chomsky being an agent of the deep state, etc.
BTW, what follows is in commemoration of the recent 50 year anniversary of the moon landing. I hope you have the courage to print it, but if not I will certainly understand why – moral cowardice.
Anyone who seriously believes that the NASA journey to the moon in the 1960s was a hoax – are you listening, Alan? – must come to grips with the following hard facts and questions:
NASA landed spacecraft on the moon six (6) times, and twelve (12) humans set foot on its surface, between 1969-1972. Were all six Apollo moon landings, which involved eighteen (18) astronauts and hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians, faked? If so, how could such an elaborate hoax have been pulled off without anyone who was involved in the programs blowing the whistle?
(NOTE: Not one of those who have cried “conspiracy” when it comes to the NASA Apollo space program had any direct involvement with the moon program.)
The astronauts who landed on the moon brought back physical evidence in the form of ‘moon rocks’. The rocks have been determined by scientists to be different than any on earth, and extraterrestrial in origin. How is it possible that 381 kg (over 800 pounds) of moon rocks exist on earth if humans never went to the moon?
If the U.S. landings on the moon were a hoax, why did our top international competitor during the Cold War ‘space race’, the Soviet Union, never challenge the reality of the NASA Apollo moon landings?
The U.S. has a number of satellites orbiting the moon which have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites, including equipment left on the moon, astronaut footprints, and tracks on the lunar surface caused by their their vehicles. How is that possible if humans never went to the moon?
In my humble opinion, the above constitutes irrefutable evidence that humans landed on the moon in the 1960s.
Alan, how do you respond to the above?
How do I respond to the above? Mmmmm… Let me see… I may be wrong… you may after all be a useful idiot (not my term, it’s just descriptive) and not a state shill. In which case – since I like to believe in free will — you are a menace to humanity (a sort of psychopath) and should best either shut up or… no other way to put it… for the good of the tribe… kill yourself.
Alan, what a thoughtful, humane and empathetic response (not). Is it any wonder that your blog following has declined precipitously over the years?
I was hoping for a more rational and intellectually coherent response, especially in regard to the NASA moon landing “hoax” you have chosen to perpetuate on your blog, but I guess that is too much to expect from someone of your dubious character.
You stated the following in a previous post,
“I am able to change my view on a subject when I come across new evidence, while you are not.”
Now, that is truly laughable.
All I can say is that, based on your above inane response (actually a non-response), it seems rather clear that one of us is interested in real evidence, while the other chooses to ignore such evidence because it does not conform to their fixed and dogmatic conspiratorial views.
Many conspiracy theorists (like members of religious cults) are so blinded by their own subjective biases that when confronted with objective evidence that does not fit their theory (or religious beliefs) they either deny the evidence, or distort it in some way. That is the case with those who believe that the earth is flat, or God created the universe a few thousand years ago, or humans did not land on the moon in the 1960s.
These conspiratorial folks inhabit a subjective cocoon which insulates them from facts that conflict with their views, and they employ a number of cognitive biases to remain insulated from objective reality, including the confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out evidence that confirms one’s worldview while ignoring or rejecting information that casts doubt on it.
Simply stated, such people are inclined to believe what they want to believe, not necessarily what is true or real, irrespective of evidence that flies in the face of their conspiratorial beliefs and exposes the fallacies in their thinking.
I’m talking to you, Alan.
‘i’m talking to you, Alan.’ Aside from the misspelling, whaddar you, Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver? This blog is not for you. Go away.
It is interesting that the only response you could muster to my challenge was that I misspelled your name.
Allan, you have fired a series of vicious ad hominem attacks my way, calling me a “fucking idiot,” “a menace to humanity,” “a sort of psychopath,” and even suggesting that I should kill myself. What’s more, the prime motivation for you doing so is because I challenged your view that the esteemed linguist-philosopher Noam Chomsky is an “agent of the deep state,” one who is “delusional” and “insane.”
You once wrote the following about conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, “His crazed rants when someone disagrees with him are painful to listen to…and the more valid the disagreer’s points, the more manically bullying the response.”
Hmmm, that sounds familiar.
I wonder what Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, or any other spiritually evolved human being who has sought to transcend their old impulsive and irrational ‘reptilian brain’ and engage in a higher quest to understand, would say about your vile and baseless attacks on others?
Allan, did you never learn the Golden Rule: “Do unto others…”?
Ad hominem (personal) attacks are, by the way, a logical fallacy utilized by those who are unable to mount a rational argument, and who therefore resort to disparaging the character of a person in an attempt to discredit their point of view – basically, it involves attacking the arguer rather than the argument.
Anyone well versed in the art and science of critical thinking can see right through the BS of ad hominem attacks, which you seem to engage in regularly on your blog, at least whenever someone calls into question your dogmatic conspiratorial views.
Food for thought.
As one travels close to a planet of the solar system, say Neptune, the planet itself should have the highest level of apparent brightness due to much smaller $d$ value. To avoid over-exposure, one chooses a relatively small $t$ value or fast shudder speed.
Now, if one checks the relative brightness of each solar planet as seen from three times its corresponding radius away, earth ranks the third while Neptune the dimmest. This advantage in planet luminosity compensates for the distance away elevating the apparent brightness and L* value of earth for the detector that’s currently near Neptune. Consequently the $M$ value for earth in the equation above falls into the acceptable range whereby the image gets captured.
NOTE FROM AW: I WAS GOING TO DELETE THIS BUT IT’S SO FUCKING HYSTERICAL THAT I THOUGHT I’D LEAVE IT. (THIS IS SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN WHY WE CAN SEE EARTH IN ‘THE PALE BLUE DOT’ BUT NOT ANY STARS.) THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL STATE OF STATE SHILLS…