And Now, A Message From Your Moral And Intellectual Betters ……

Joyce Carol Oates

✔ @JoyceCarolOates

“Deer population control” replicates slaughter & destruction of indigenous inhabitants by invading white settlers. https://twitter.com/peta/status/699695340040146945 …

 

Oates is an author of some books I’ve never read, an educator, and prominent leftarded commentator. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to And Now, A Message From Your Moral And Intellectual Betters ……

  1. DirkH says:

    I love Oates. So fun.

    During speech in Harlem, Hillary now seems to self-identify as African American, otherwise this makes no sense:
    “4:43: Hillary says whites need to “recognize our privilege” and “practice humility” instead of assuming that “our experiences are everybody’s experiences.””
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/16/3055156/
    Or maybe her speechwriter is black and forgot that she’s not.

  2. cdquarles says:

    It is so tempting to round these people up and drop them off in the wilderness, naked. [Stop thinking evil thoughts ;)]

  3. kim2ooo says:

    MR Trump says he’ll sue over this?

    Where is his legal standing?

  4. Jason Calley says:

    “Hand sanitizer bacterial control” replicates slaughter & destruction of indigenous inhabitants by invading white settlers.

    Same thing about brushing your teeth.

  5. DirkH says:

    Miles Mathis about discovery of the century, LIEGO gravity waves: says it’s their laser resonating with a local electron producing a chirp.
    PDF is 12 pages, not too hard on the bandwidth.
    http://milesmathis.com/liego.pdf

    • Lars P. says:

      Thanks for the post Dirk!!
      Really interesting read!
      BTW, when he mentioned 1000 authors I thought it is a joke, an exaggeration, to find out it was true… lol – see NY Times post for which he has a link in the file:
      “Members of the LIGO group, a worldwide team of scientists, along with scientists from a European team known as the Virgo Collaboration, published a report in Physical Review Letters on Thursday with more than 1,000 authors.”
      “we are told mirrors in the arms of LIGO moved .004 the diameter of a proton, indicating that two black holes were colliding somewhere in the distance. ”
      ROFL, what is passing now as science is astonishing. We are back to alchemy and astrology or worse
      ” To say it another way, to get a collision of black holes to chirp with the same strength as an electron being hit by a laser, you have to take your black holes out to an incredible distance. ”
      this is so nicely said. If they detect waves from 1 billion of light years away, why don’t they detect waves from much closer sources?
      And the explanation that he gives makes much more sense…

    • Miles Mathis sounds like my dad. My dad didn’t like quantum mechanics so he made up his own subatomic particles. Like you, my dad didn’t like relativity either.

      Whatever the LIGO detected, it was done by two separate observatories sensing something traveling at the speed-of-light. I doubt that electrons in mirrors at two separate locations could cause a signal that mimic something traveling at the speed-of-light. However, I’d like this to fail, because I want gravity waves to travel much faster than c.

      We can measure binary pulsars spiraling in on each other. The system is losing energy either by gravity waves or by some unknown process.

      If massive objects curve space-time, then their motions should create changes in space-time that mimic waves. I still don’t know if these galaxy supercomputer simulations treat gravity as an instantaneous action or allow for speed-of-light updates to space-time (assuming gravity travels at c). I suspect the former, so either gravity travels instantaneously or those simulations are wrong.

      Jim

      • DirkH says:

        “If massive objects curve space-time, then their motions should create changes in space-time that mimic waves.”

        Astronomers must assume that gravity works instantaneously otherwise orbits become instable. Gravity waves though travel with light speed.
        There’s no logic behind that.

        “My dad didn’t like quantum mechanics so he made up his own subatomic particles. Like you, my dad didn’t like relativity either.”

        Interestingly the weird behaviour of the double slit experiment has been simulated by making droplets jump on standing waves on a liquid covered oscillating table. Which sounds SO MUCH like de Broglies pilot wave it is just an extremely cool experiment, done at MIT; so, the jumping droplet can travel on the pilot wave and turns out to chose quasi random paths through slits and form interference patterns over time.

        So the “quantum weirdness” could just be an emergent phenomenon of a rather simple underlying system.

        As to relativity, well they needed it to explain Maxwell for relativistic speeds; now there was a different team, Gauss-Weber Electrodynamics, and they had a third member, Riemann; now what was he famous for, right, the Riemannian manifold, a mathematical description of… curved surfaces (of arbitrary dimensionality). Notice something? Yes – the other team was working on this curving issue as well. Gauss-Weber-Riemann lost in one of the science wars; and was never continued. Maybe needed some fixes, maybe wasn’t easily understood, maybe Maxwell offered an advantage of easier computability / reduction to locality (like the Kopenhagen interpretation offers local computability vs the non-local Bohm-de Broglie interpretation, so Bohm-de Broglie lost out, that is, until MIT made their oscillation experiment).

        Can we revisit those outsider theories with the computational power we have today, computing the non-local solutions? I find this prospect extremely exciting.

        • DirkH says:

          …and re the non-locality of Bohm-de Broglie, there’s a video interview of the late Bohm on youtube where he talks about how the non-locality of Bohm-de Broglie implies that everything is connected; which he takes in a quite spiritual way. He’s of course not the first physicist seeing a spiritual meaning of his theories but he points out the similarity to Eastern philosophies… The locality – relative isolatedness of “Western” interpretations (chosen for immediate usefulness; a quick shortcut; empirical / pragmatic) – vs. the all-pervasive connectedness of “Easternness” – next to impossible to compute but after all the CORRECT interpretation….

          The typical behaviour of Western physicists is to drop all terms with “insignificant” magnitude from their calculations – “We are not mathematicians, doesn’t make a difference anyway, too small to measure” – well it takes you a certain way, but not farther…

        • cdquarles says:

          Nicely spotted, Dirk. Insignificant and negligible are not exactly the same thing as zero. In damped-driven deterministically chaotic systems, you will not capture the essences of the system by equating ‘insignificant or negligible’ with zero. You have changed both the initial conditions and the boundary conditions by doing so. You may be able to have useful first approximations come from this; but, whenever high accuracy, resolution, and precision work must be done, you’re going to be surprised when the system does not behave in accord with your inapt expectations.

        • DirkH says:

          CD, I studied computer science in Brunswick with a heavy maths emphasis and at the same time exposure to some physics via robotics – where the “physicist” approach was used to compute successive motions of robot arms via iterative transforms, dropping the insignificant terms. Oh and signal processing, where the same simplifications where used when handy. The researchers were aware of the fact they were using shortcuts though and warned of misapplications.

          Some chip designers like Charles “Chuck” Moore, the inventor of Forth, (not the same guy as the Intel Charles Moore), have made inventions by analyzing the “noise” that is generally hated and ignored by EE designers – he designed a keyboard with one wire; where each key would interrupt the wire when pressed, each key being at a different distance from the source of the wire and modify the time a reflection in the wire would take – he got this idea by analyzing reflections between transistor stages in an integrated circuit. It’s the spurious dirt effects that hold some exciting information.

          Also, look at the number monster in this video. It comes about through limited precision of floating point calculations in iterated models. Like climate models.

          Start at 30:00 or so for the introduction to this.
          Believing in Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast, and Climate Models , Chris Essex

        • DirkH says:

          The number monster graphics appears at about 37:40 if you’re short on time.

        • cdquarles says:

          I’ve seen that video, Dirk; but thanks for posting the link again.

          Back in the early ’80s, I was working in a pathology lab. They had an Apple II+ hooked to a chromatography detector that digitized the analog colorimetric data. It was a 12 bit A to D that sampled every 250 milliseconds, if I am remembering correctly. Sometimes the A to D converter would chop and alias the signal, particularly when the color intensity was too high or too low. That was my first hands-on exposure to Nyquist and FFTs done on a slow processor that had to do math without a co-processor. The lab upgraded it to an IBM PC-XT with a co-processor. I had to port the software, by myself. I couldn’t finish the job, for I was only hired for the summer. To do that job I had to do my own research and was pointed to Donald Knuth’s classics. Eventually, I bought my own copy of Numerical Recipes for Scientists. My personal library had a several thousand dollar collection of computer science materials from basic programming to operating systems. I lost most of that library, sadly.

      • >>
        Astronomers must assume that gravity works instantaneously otherwise orbits become instable. Gravity waves though travel with light speed.
        There’s no logic behind that.
        <<

        It’s true that Newton requires gravity to act instantaneously. In GR, the motion of the Sun WRT the planets is essentially static. The Sun does wiggle slightly as the planets, especially Jupiter, revolve, but the curvature of space at orbital distances doesn’t change much and effectively acts like an infinite speed force. However, that won’t work when you compare the Sun’s motion to other stars in the galaxy. In that case, the GR view that gravity is limited to the speed-of-light should affect the supercomputer simulations of galaxies. As I said before. I wonder which model they are using? It could explain galactic motion without the need for dark matter–or make the problem worse.

        Jim

      • Lars P. says:

        Van Flanders had some comments on the observed changes in a binary pulsar which do not fit light speed propagation for gravity:
        http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

        “Now we are ready to compare this prediction for binary pulsars PSR1913+16 and PSR1534+12 with the measured values of in the two best-observed cases. Orbital quantities are taken from (Taylor et al., 1992) – see Text Box: PSR1913+16 PSR1534+12 (sec) 2.342 3.729 (sec) 27,907 36,352 -observed -2.42×10-12 �0.6×10-12 -predicted +921×10-12 +1682×10-12 Table I. Observed and predicted period change rate for two binary pulsars. Table I. The period change rate for PSR1534+12 is not yet seen, so the table shows the observational error of the measurement. At a glance, we see there is no possible match. The predicted period changes that would result if gravity propagated at the speed of light in a manner analogous to electromagnetic forces are orders of magnitude larger than the observed period changes. For PSR1913+16, they have the opposite sign as well. From PSR1534+12, we can set a lower limit to the speed of gravity as an electromagnetic-type propagating force: 2800c.

        In concluding this section, we should also note that, even in the solar system, the Sun moves around the barycenter in a path that often takes the barycenter a million kilometers or so from the Sun. So the idea that the Sun’s field can be treated as “static” and unchanging is not a good approximation even for our own planetary system. The Sun’s motion during the light time to the planets is appreciable, yet its gravity field is continually updated without apparent delay.

        • I’ve read this Van Flanders article before. It’s interesting that he separates gravity waves (which apparently only travel at c) from the gravity propagation speed that updates a gravity field. The later seems to travel at many, many times c though not necessarily at infinity. I find that distinction difficult to comprehend.

          Jim

        • cdquarles says:

          This is a fascinating article, though it is poorly formatted in my browser. Thanks for the link!

        • cdquarles says:

          I just read this and I find the distinction necessary and follow from the underlying premises. Gravitational radiation, if it has the same kind of generating mechanism and propagates in a manner equivalent to how electromagnetic radiation does, then the light-speed limit follows directly from the mathematics. Gravity field propagation need not be like EM radiation at all, thus the distinction to keep people from conflating them inappropriately.

          Consider this: Truth is Truth, a contingent truth is also Truth, but only when the contingent is true. People conflate contingent truths with Truth and go astray when they do so.

        • DirkH says:

          cdquarles says:
          February 19, 2016 at 1:20 pm
          “Gravity field propagation need not be like EM radiation at all, thus the distinction to keep people from conflating them inappropriately. ”

          Any propagation of anything faster than light allows for violation of causality in GR, as far as I understand it, as there is no uniform time axis, so closed time-like loops are hated by relativists. That’s also why the Goedel metric , designed by Goedel and given to Einstein as a birthday present, wasn’t really appreciated by Einstein.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric

        • cdquarles says:

          As I understand it, GR is incomplete; so I’m going to be more cautious about conflating a contingent truth with Truth.

    • >>
      Miles Mathis
      <<

      Miles Mathis is an interesting dude–thanks for the link to his papers (and he’s very prolific–paperwise).

      I read his muon critique (http://milesmathis.com/muon.html) and found it hilarious. He’s obviously read about the time dilation of muons in the popular press and hasn’t read the actual paper (D.H. Frisch and J.H. Smith, Am. J. Phys., 31, 342-355 (1963)). He also doesn’t seem to know that the lifetimes of subatomic particles, like all radiation, is a half-life. So his whole complaint about where muons are created and computing actual distance traveled is bogus.

      Unfortunately, the explanation of the muon-time dilation experiment in the popular press is poorly explained, because those authors didn’t understand the experiment either. Even without time dilation, some muons would always make it to the Earth’s surface, because they only decay by a factor of two for each half-life.

      Basically they put a muon detector on a mountain peak (Mt. Washington) and a second muon detector at the base of the mountain. I don’t remember the actual numbers, but let’s say that the distance between the two detectors would represent two muon half-lives (we’re assuming the muons are all traveling at c). So if the upper detector counted 100 muons on average per hour, then the expected muon count by the lower detector should be no more than 25 muons on average per hour (i.e., if no time dilation occurred and their maximum speed was c). If we actually counted 50 muons on average per hour, then according to SR the muons must be traveling at 87% c. A number near 100 muons on average per hour would mean a very large time dilation and a speed very close to c. The actual experiment had different numbers, but I’ve explained the basic idea.

      Jim

      • I said 87% c as a wag, because that’s when the Lorentz transforms change by a factor of 2. Working backwards, a velocity of 87% c should give us a muon count of about 45 per hour. A velocity of 90% c gives us about 51 muons per hour. So a muon count of 50 is a velocity that is slightly less than 90% c.

        Jim

  6. DirkH says:

    I’m disappointed. Ruling party CDU – which still imports 3000 Muslims a day – has taken down their web server – so I can’t send them copies of the daily stabbings and rape reports with my comments about their policies. Who am I gonna pester now.

    Guess they just need a bit of calm to try to concentrate in regional elections in 4 weeks in 3 lands.

    Or maybe their plane to Paraguay leaves today so they took the server with them.

  7. DirkH says:

    Hilarious! Leftist big city granola eaters have busied themselves over the last decades by having their whole upper bodies tattooed.
    So FORGET ABOUT THAT HOLIDAY TRIP TO JAPAN as Hamburg leftist rag ZEIT notices.
    http://www.zeit.de/entdecken/reisen/2016-02/japan-tattoo-taetowierung-yakuza-urlaub-onsen?google_editors_picks=true
    …every Japanese will associate you with the Yakuza and Japan currently has a zero tolerance policy about them – no swimming pool, no fitness studio, no Onse (hot springs) for anyone tattooed! In other words no nuttin where you go around half neckid!

  8. DirkH says:

    Protest poster at demo at entrance of a Merkel campaign gig.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s