Addendum: I posted this a little while ago and have noticed that Sean is still plugging away at the last post. I am not looking at it as of now and neither should any of you. What is the takeaway from that one? If you are interested in cosmology/physics, you should now know to look deeply into the truth about relativity and ‘the big bang universe’, with which the mainstream continues to hammer you. If you’ve been paying attention at all you know by now that anything this important to them is somehow (if not totally) a lie. The other takeaway is the effort to misdirect you, as shown by ‘Sean’ and those like him.
The upside is how important it is to the PTB that you believe the lies. Proof of this is ‘Sean’ himself. Look at the effort he has put into his bull shit. Who would go to this trouble if he wasn’t being paid to do so?
Every lie you don’t believe is a victory for the good guys.
The commenter who calls himself ‘Sean’ is not the usual ‘government troll’ (which I define as an actual person – as opposed to an A.I. bot – whose job is to misdirect and otherwise obfuscate HTWRW, via comments on various social media and videos). ‘Sean’ is a ‘specialty’ troll, a troll with some formal education, aside from the training seminar state trolls get before going ‘live’. It’s sort of uplifting that the PTB would go to this length on our little blog, isn’t it? I mean all that money and energy just for us?
I don’t doubt that ‘Sean’ could be an A.I. similar to Samantha in this film. But let’s assume he’s one of…. us. More or less.
I assume Sean is human… let me rephrase… I assume Sean is made of meat, although it’s possible ‘he’ is an advanced A.I. entity. If you saw the Spike Jonze film Her, think of the OS System called Samantha; now think of ‘her’ when we realize that she had over 8,000 other ‘clients’ (aside from Theodore), 600 or so of which she is likewise ‘in love with.’ I don’t doubt for a moment that spook A.I. algorithms (is there any other kind?) have reached the level of sophistication depicted in Her. So it is possible that (in my last post’s comments) we have been arguing with an algorithm. Not as uplifting…
A.I. Gatekeepers (mainstreamers like Max Tegmark, Nick Bostrom, Musk, etc.) like to point out (as evidence of advancement) the Deep Mind chess and alpha go victories but the one that got my attention was the Jeopardy! win, which showed just how sophisticated an ‘artificial intelligence’ they are admitting to, let alone what they have hidden who knows where. (‘Hidden in plain site’ is more like it: By now their predictive behavior/culture creation A.I. likely uses the Net itself as its ‘neuro-network’….)
Anyway, ‘Sean’ may or may not be ‘real’ in the sense that most of you are real, but – as I hope you all know by now — ‘his’ (I’ll now quit with the scare quotes) job is to fuck with our notions of reality, for reasons I assume are common knowledge around here. If you doubt me on this, think about his output, i.e., the time and effort this apparently very intelligent and (according to Sean himself) very busy entity expends on my little blog (there are no more than a couple 
hundred who pay attention to it): over the last few days Sean has written over 2,000 words, all in defense of Einstein’s Relativity theories. This is a guy who has claimed to be a student of… what was it? And he’s writing a paper on… what was it? And his other claimed… jobs??? Whatever. And recall he was the first to comment on my post – it was almost instantaneous, well before notifications were sent out.
So he either constantly checks to see if I have a new post, or has a software feature that notifies him when one appears (no doubt the latter). Either way: What is with that? And of course all his comments are in line with the PTB and what it wants us to think. Do you need more evidence? I didn’t think so.
But why expend my own energy on a lowlife like this guy (assuming he’s human and a guy). Know thine enemy. Right, Sun Tzu, The Art of War. And we most certainly are at war with Sean and his ilk.
And in this case, it is a war of words. I write, Sean parries, mostly to misdirect, for our time wasted is a big part of his strategy. And Sean is most definitely outgunned here, for it matters not at all how ‘smart’ he is, since I have obvious truths on my side (as in the matter of black holes), and I have continually warned you to be on the lookout for misdirection, which is Sean’s only defense. Misdirection ain’t easy when folks are on the alert for it.
I’ll give you an example. In my last post, I made several points, the main one of which was regarding flat earth. But Sean, knowing that FE is a PTB black op that is to be defended, did all he could to re-direct the conversation… to an aside I made about Einstein. So be it. Sean did well – notice how the comments were directed away from the topic of the FE psy op and what it means. We ended up yelling back and forth about… Einstein’s theory of relativity.
This is literally inarguable stuff. No amount of math misdirection will help, Sean.
Good for you, Sean! And Sean was even able (more or less) to re-direct the Einstein conversation into the arena of obscure mathematics – as opposed to logic/critical thinking — the lingo of which appears to be his specialty. (So Sean pulled off a bit of double misdirection!)
For example, Steve Crothers rightly points out that it is pure nonsense to claim that black hole singularities are real when they are defined as ‘points of infinite density and infinite or near infinite hotness.’ See, a ‘point’ is a mathematical construct that has no volume by definition, so…. that this is nonsense is not arguable, and neither is it arguable that the proponents of black holes make these claims. (See Steve’s video here.)
Science Gatekeeper (your namesake) Sean Carroll points at ‘earth’ in an apparent one-body universe. How does that work, Sean?
So Sean’s only (desperate) defense is to say that we’re all too dense (speaking of density) to understand the underlying mathematics, which, if we were to understand it (as he does), explains how a volume-less point actually can contain infinite hotness and density.
So Sean has a hard row to hoe, especially given that we know (or ought to) that he is an agent of misdirection to begin with. Wow.
But my current interest in Sean is to herein give him a platform to defend one of his physics heroes, whom I also mentioned in my last post. I’m talking about Sean Carroll, another devotee of black holes/big bang nonsense. Notice his ‘photograph’ called ‘The Pale Blue Dot’ and how there is nothing depicted in it other than the tiny smudge that Sean claims is ‘earth.’
This is supposedly Neptune from Voyager. Why no stars in this background, given that Neptune is too faint to see by eye?
Since the Voyager satellite camera that supposedly shot the image was some 4 billion miles away – close to the planet Neptune – and earth was being illuminated by reflected sunlight, it would be among the faintest celestial objects seen from the camera’s position.
Sean, I need you to defend your colleague in his implied assertion that the photo is genuine. Where are the background stars?
Remember that the usual nonsense about camera exposures being unable to pick up stars will not work here, since the camera is picking up the earth: The camera’s position is near Neptune and Neptune is not visible from earth, not on the clearest of nights, so how could earth be visible from Neptune, but not the heavens themselves (the star field)?
Since Neptune is not visible (by eye) from earth, but earth is visible from Neptune, why can’t we see stars?
Addendum: Do not claim that the problem is ‘angle of view’, since the image contains about a hundred earth diameters. It’s a very wide view and should include several constellation-size groups of stars.
And remember, Sean, that if your namesake is clearly misinforming us (telling us something he clearly should know is false)… well, what does that say about his favorite theory, General Relativity?
Good luck, Sean, and please stick to the one question about why no stars.
Allan
I have to repeat myself on something. The reason for agents like Sean who pound away unceasingly, and for movies like Interstellar (and on and on), and for academia being the way it is… is all because of the transparency of the lies. It’s only a small step less severe than the flat earth psy op. Just think about the premise of the big bang. Everything – all that would be the universe, all the matter and energy – was crammed into a point smaller than the nucleus of an atom. That’s what they are saying. You want to talk about mind control?
Allan, we don’t really know how photographs made in space would look like since we don’t really make them. Satellites may photograph the Earth from above, but the fast movement on the orbit won’t allow much else. Space probes were popular in the Sci Fi time of the 70-s but there wasn’t even any sufficient technology to produce necessary electrical power or position the antenna precisely enough to reach the Earth. For instance the first TV satellites in the 80-s were able to transfer signals for a range of some 36000km back and again and not much else. Space probes are told to be millions km’s away. And moving very fast equipped with the technology of the 70-s, which is stone age. I don’t believe, we can communicate with such objects at all. My background is in electrical engineering and I know a bit here. Radio wave is always send as a spherical wave. It can be partially blocked by the dish of the antenna but it cannot be focused into a stream. Using a dish to receive such a signal means collecting all waves from a very small angle and focusing them to a point where it can be amplified. The receiving antenna hast to be very precise oriented or you won’t get anything. TV-satellites are 36000 km away. Not millions, like the space probe. Even if we knew exactly where a space probe would be at a certain time, which we don’t know at all, we had to point the dish to a point in space so far away and on a constantly moving Earth. Communication that way is not possible.
I don’t think you’re going to get an answer from Sean. I doubt it’s that he is too scared to answer, or whatever. It’s probably just that you, supposedly at least having dabbled in photography, should find the answer blindingly obvious. It involves the equipment, an aspect of the equipment, and the fact that in space there is a super bright source of light almost always illuminating your object unless it is blocked by another one. Hopefully this hint has helped to… expose the answer. NOTE FROM AW: NO, SORRY, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THAT. THERE IS NO PHOTOGRAPHIC REASON WHY STARS ARE ABSENT FROM THE PHOTO. YOUR CRYPTIC SHIT DOESN’T WASH.
You’re going to make me reply to an edit in my own comment? C’mon man. YOU can do better.
Stars are really dim. The Sun is bright. The planets are also dim, but not as dim as stars. In order to take a photo of planets where there is strong background lighting, we have to rely on very short exposures. Otherwise the sun will wash out our planet picture. This is the case for almost all space-bound photography except things like Hubble – where exposures are almost always done on the orbital path opposite the Sun. Astro CCD images are almost always taken with very short exposures. So they don’t get enough time to expose the stars because you risk mucking up an image that you literally only have maybe one shot at. Almost all extra-terrestrial images taken that show stars are just in the lucky position of having the sun blocked out of the image. This is much harder to accomplish when you’re out by Neptune.
Don’t get me wrong, much respect and I enjoy reading your blog and your ideas, but I don’t think this is the hill you want to die on.
Also, Neptune is certainly visible from Earth, even with only strong binoculars. It appears almost exactly like the photo of “The Pale Blue Dot” – just an unimpressive blue-green star. I’ve seen it myself years ago with a small 80mm refractor. So the claim that it can’t be exposure by arguing that Neptune isn’t visible but Earth is doesn’t really work here.
dear psienide, if you photograph a planet, for instance the easiest one to photograph, which is Jupiter, you can have the details of the planet or the moons. Never booth at the same time. To have the moons on the picture, you have to overexposure the planet. Same with stars. If you’re lucky. you’ll get a bright star near the planet, but it is rare. Usually there aren’t any stars bright enough to be seen on a picture taken with less than 1/100s and for the biggest planets you’ll use much less. Neptun a different matter and is pretty hard to find even without any light pollution. You’ll have to take hundreds of pics and stack them to see the difference to the near stars. With binoculars you’ll only see some stars, one of them maybe being a planet but never be sure. This voyager picture of Neptun is a fake because the Voyager is a fake. Also all Hubble pictures were taken on Earth and heavily photoshopped. No telescope put on orbit can be stabilized enough to make any long exposure pictures. The orbit in itself is pretty unstable. If you photograph the geostationary orbit carefully enough, you’ll find many “dancing” satellites there. To make long exposure pics on orbit you have to work against the orbit movement, against the planet movement and against all the inaccuracy there. With only very limited control. And remember, Hubble is supposedly from the 1990. PC’s had 32 MB HD drives and 640KB RAM back then? It’s a fake.
I think you underestimate the technology in the Hubble. Did they fake putting the wrong mirror in there, too? Remember they had to fix it with a corrective lens because of a math error during the mirror production. It seems like it would have just been easier to fake a successful project than an unsuccessful one that is internationally embarrassing, and has to be fixed with a spacewalk. I’m sure you’ll just be like, “oh, that makes it more believable.” Or some such nonsense. Also, photoshop launched February 19, 1990 on Macintosh only. The Hubble telescope was sent up April 25, 1990. Anything “photoshopped “ in 1990 is going to be pretty obvious through graphical analysis in 2019. The whole thing doesn’t make any sense. Why do you assume Hubble photos are fakes? Do you have any actual evidence? Most evidence points to it all being real.
You say ‘The planets are also dim, but not as dim as stars.’ We need go no further to see this as nonsense. Need I even explain?
if AI was real, there would be useful software translators everywhere for the most languages. There aren’t any. All we have is still the same thing we had back then in the 80-s. Some sort of expert systems using predefined questions to decide the predefined answer which only simulates intelligence. We are not a step further since then. As you may have read, even Amazons (or others) voice analysis (Alexa or whatever) uses permanently working humans to make corrections in the system. It is all based on sets of conditional clauses the art of “if… then…”. Then there is so called fuzzy logic in many devices, which is only a variation of control engineering technology. That’s it. There are always real people involved, be it fake comments or fake ratings or whatever. They’ve created a real huge market for people working as crisis actors, giving fake interviews, writing fake comments or even fake news. Everybody can do it. Online newspapers are nowadays openly asking “do you want to become our reporter?”. And they recycle many silly stories regularly as “news”. Those things are the fillers between other scripted stories on any online news page. Look for it and you will find it.
Going on three days and not a word from ‘Sean’ re my offer of a post at his disposal, if he explains why there are no stars in the famous ‘The Pale Blue Dot’ photograph. I hope you understand the significance of the state throwing in the towel on this. And the implications of the significance (just one being Carl Sagan’s participation in the hoax).
I suspect Sean will show up though, with a different identity and a nasty agenda to get even, for being exposed and bested.
By the way, I also emailed Sean privately, repeating my offer, and assuring him total control over the post, aside from a note I might add.
I knew “HER” – she strung me along with promises of Happily Ever After, until she had wrung every last penny out of me…and then dumped me like yesterday’s garbage, presumably off to her next victim….bitch.
That was tedious ……..
Hey all.
The reality is a computer simulation. Here is a short review of why it is more accurate than any other belief of how it works
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/simulation-hypothesis/
That said Rixwan Virk wrote a book (just released) states We are living in a video game. He then goes on to show why the consensus today by phycisists and religious concepts verifies that living in the Virtual world is intensely difficult.
His book, also named the simulation hypothesis, seems to be right on.
The physics that has the biggest attraction today.
In the book he shows how the world works. That is it is a giant matrix created by beings much more advanced then we are. Rizwan states that he can tie everything to us living in a Simulation. The goal is to have such technology so we can download our conciousness along with all memories etc from brain.
That means we have no Soul or morals either as we will always have our insanity with us.
Try this for a primer to his book. You may debunk. Who knows!
Hey Allan
Most mathematicians react violently, if you tell them that you don’t believe in Einstein’s theory,or don’t worship the man for some reason. Happened to me more than once recently.
Same with EU…Seems to trigger some violent nerve in mathematicians/physicists, when you question their believes.
True true. One of the many things that nags is how EU folks accept so many of NASA/Etc.’s deceits; I assume they do so in the hope of eventual acceptance. (Which would be like a Jew dying his hair, getting a nose job and working out, in the hope of Nazi acceptance.) I’ve been tossed from the EU forum for a casual reference to an inarguable chunk of evidence that Apollo was a hoax. They even invited Shermer to a conference, assuming he would ‘see the light.’ Sad state of affairs. Still, they are the best single source of understanding how the universe really works.
I do agree with you.
The Safire project too, might have shaken some dogmas/paradigms.
What a task ahead,for them at EU…It is a sensitive subject. And they do show that the Universe is not empty, it’s not just vaccum and gravitation at work. Looks more like an electric web than a mathematic formula to me.
Hope you’re ok.
Dear Allan,
Please have a nice day. Don’t let little pricks like me get you down. I heart you in a hetero way. You’ve made many my days better.
I can be a real cock. Sorry. I truly mean the above. I don’t want there to be any confusion. You’re an epic writer who I respect.
You’re worried I’ll ban you, huh? I admit it’s occurred to me.
Not really. I vaccilate between being infuriated with you, and being intrigued. And I’m an asshole sometimes. I think I’ll go have a nice 4/20.
Vacillate. Whoops.
I wonder why relativity is still even considered to be an accurate representation, of physics in the universe? It’s a bit heady for me, but the concept of curved space-time seems like an abstraction based on pure mathematics without empirical evidence. For instance it ignores empirical data by saying the speed of light is a constant, a bit of an assumption, which has been disproven by empirical experiment, as the speed of light is variable. The 186,000 miles per second figure is a mean of various different speeds recorded by the Navy if I recall.
It seems that you struck a vein by even mentioning it in writing. For instance, as all university physics education is based on relativity, a mass-produced fabrication. It appears it makes the PTB angry when anyone writes about it. Why else would Sean troll on such a small blog, they would rather you believe in a flat earth than in the fallibility of Relativity.
I think the electric universe theory is dangerous to them because it is the basis for technologies that they want to suppress.
Are you fucking stupid? No empirical evidence? I’m going to have a fucking nervous breakdown. Do some goddamn research. Some people are keen on dragging knuckles.
True true and true. (See my first response.)
Yep. And Relativity’s ‘curved space’ paradigm cannot even deal with a spring scale. You know when you weigh carrots at the super? They can’t explain why the spring scale works. Not kidding. See if you can debunk this.
A spring scale cannot measure mass, only weight.
Btw Hooke’s law is how it works.
Mass versus weight:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
Relativity deals with mass, not weight. Spring scales deal with weight, not mass. The curvature of the space causes the gravitational force which is used to weigh shit on the scale. The scale doesn’t measure the curvature of space causing the gravity. It can’t. It measures the gravitational force being applied to the object being weighed. The inertial mass stored in the spring counteracts the gravity being applied to the weighed object.
Last one, really.
A balance scale measures mass, not weight. So you will have the same reading on the moon as you would on the Earth. Because the spring scale is measuring gravitational force rather than mass, you would get different readings on the moon than on the Earth, even if the mass is the same.
Yes, we know. And that’s exactly the point of the spring.
A given *mass* is expected to have different *weights* depending on whether it’s on the Earth or the Moon or wherever; “weight” is pretty much what we’re talking about when we speak of “gravity”.
Goes like this: take a spring, lying horizontally. To extend it, we have to “pull” on one end or another (or both); we have to apply some force to cause this distortion.
Hang the same spring vertically, like a spring scale. Attach a mass to the free end. Gently let go.
Does the spring extend? If yes, then that mass is exerting a force (aka “weight”) on the spring. But why? Einsteinian gravity is just the curvature of space-time, not a “force”. An object *already* in motion has its path determined by this “curvature”. But the curve really doesn’t explain why a mass at rest would start to move — i.e., to pull down and distort the spring (and register a “weight”).
This phenomenon we call “gravity” (why things fall down, why masses have weight) is a force — a force that overcomes the inertia of a mass, whether that mass is in motion or at rest. If your explanation is not a force, then we’re not talking about the same thing.
Gravity is a force, caused by the curvature of space time. A spring scale measures the force, and is calibrated to coincide with mass measurements on Earth. Masses only have weight in the presence of gravity, and that weight changes relative to the gravity. So if you balance on a scale with you one side, and 120 stones on the other, your mass is equal to 120 stones. On the moon, both you and the stones weigh less, so you would still weigh 120 stones. A spring scale, which measures gravitational force, is calibrated so it only approximates the mass readings on Earth. So on the moon, your weight would change, but the inertial mass stored in the spring doesn’t change, and gives the wrong approximations of your mass.
Who said they don’t know how spring scales worked? I have not heard of this supposed incompatibility between spring scales and relativity. Can someone point me to some legitimate research detailing this? I looked, but it didn’t seem to be a thing, so I figured people were conflating mass and weight, and some turd probably has a YouTube video about it somewhere, misinforming people. YouTube is generally a poor source for reliable scientific information, but a great source for misinformation and bad advice. But it sounds good, and gosh darned it, the people are nice, so I want to believe it anyways because I’m gullible, and enjoy being ignorant and misinformed, and don’t trust anyone, especially those “experts” like scientists and mathematicians. I mean, obviously the professional outcasts with universally panned ideas and pseudoscientific YouTube videos are far more trustworthy than professional peer-reviewed research papers, and internationally renowned leaders in various scientific fields. But seriously, do physicists really have a problem with spring scales, or is it like a few kooks?
You are infuriating. I’m already having a bad day/week/year. Goddammit, those electric universe people are morons. You are smarter than them. I’m sorry Einstein is so inconvenient for everyone, but suck on it, dumbasses. If your theory rests on the fact that relativity is bogus, you don’t have a chance in hell. Good fucking luck. And then tossing the math out the window, like it is meaningless. Sigh. That is what makes Einstein great! You are bending your mind to ignore what you don’t want to believe, so that you can improperly believe what you think you want to. There is no way to win. You will just keep changing the goalposts.
Tesla said the same thing that you’re mocking right now. I prefer Tesla to you and Einstein. Einstein was an actor. I guess he was a good one from your point of view, he fooled you.
Calm down, buddy. I’ll repeat: ‘Relativity’s ‘curved space’ paradigm cannot even deal with a spring scale. You know when you weigh carrots at the super? They can’t explain why the spring scale works. Not kidding. See if you can debunk this.’
Rather than your usual rant, how about showing us how GR or SR deals with a spring scale.
Hey Sean: If you send me the answer to this post’s question, I’ll post it as my next entry. Although I might add a comment before or after your text, I’ll not fuck with it in any way. Send images to my allan@bb email address. If we don’t hear from you reasonably soon I’ll assume you’re done with this blog. In which case: Bye!
You assume Sean is human? WTF. We assume you are human. Hmmmm…. Maybe you are just some ptb ai troll. Trying to manipulate the masses (note: no, this is not true, and is for dramatic effect.). Sometimes paranoia just goes out of control. Shoot the argument, not the person presenting it.
Hawking radiation prevents a universe from existing where black holes are everlasting. Deal with it.
Deal with it? How about you deal with the fact that Hawking hasn’t even been alive for 20 or 30 years. Jesus. Looks like it may be time to wrap this blogging up, if this is the sort of comment I’ll have to deal with.
Wtf does that have to do with Hawking radiation of black holes? Are you being serious?
Either Hawking was real and understood black holes and told the truth about them, or (while real) he didnt and lied; or Hawking was fake but understood and told the truth about them, or didnt and lied.
Since it is far easier to see that Hawking was fake than to know whether he understood and told the truth about black holes, we are left with the lesser choice to the right of the semi-colon.
Chris says the fake scientist understood and told the truth. Allan says he didn’t and lied.
Chris says Allan is not serious. Allan feels like giving up.
We will miss Allan if it comes to that.
Lied? He lied? Is that a joke? Like, it’s more complicated than that. You know, math and stuff. I fucking hope Allan doesn’t stop. Even if I disagree. Maybe I should stop.
Okay, Chris. That’s enough for today.
just edit and send them a polite explanation.
It’s FLAT ya fucking globetards. Whoever heard of upside down water.
You shitball, Alan.