Since Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, became a part of the US Presidential election campaign there has been a change in US Politics with the Democrats now joining what some are describing as a new oil rush.
Writing for the New York Times in an article entitle ‘Demoncrats embrace offshore drilling’ Carl Hulse explains:
“For decades, opposition to new offshore oil drilling has been a core principle of Congressional Democrats, ranking in the party pantheon somewhere just below protecting Social Security and increasing the minimum wage. But a concerted Republican assault over domestic oil production and the threat of political backlash from financially pressed motorists have Democrats poised to embrace a fundamental shift in energy policy.”
————
Carl Hulse, The New York Times, 11 September 2008
DEMOCRATS EMBRACE OFFSHORE DRILLING
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/12cong.html?hp
Link from Benny Peiser
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Funny how non-leftists get tagged with being anti-science. These political trogs and economics illiterates would have gladly seen Americans starve of petrol if it didn’t mean they would be punished at the polls. The only reason they’re supporting it is they know what would happen at the next election if they didn’t.
My bet is they’re pretending to support it and then tie it up all in knots through repressive legislation which is why I hope the GOP makes them vote on specifics before the election keeping their private parts very close to the fire.
This Palin appears to be a really outstanding candidate. As Governor she was suing the Feds to try and stop them from using the endangered species act to stop drilling. Hows this for a long bow? The act was being used to claim that Polar Bears were endangered. Which they weren’t, and if they did get in trouble it would only be from overfishing.
But in any case the Polar bears had to be made endangered in order to stop the drilling. And yet drilling wouldn’t hurt the polar bear in the slightest. The whole thing only takes a few thousand acres in a truly massive state much bigger than most countries. Got nothing to do with the polar bear and not all of it near the coast in the first place. I don’t know whether they are expecting the polar bears to keep getting run over loitering around railway lines or something. The whole thing is entirely implausible. So she was suing the Feds over it.
They have a lot of oil up there. But they seem to have just mountains of natural gas. Palin is wanting to build this huge gas pipeline from Alaska. This ties up well with the Pickens plan to stop (for the love of humanity) using gas for electricity turbines and instead start using it for transport.
You need some gas-electricity turbines because they can be cranked up very quickly if you need more power in a hurry. As can hydro-electric. But its a fearful waste to be using gas beyond that crank-up level needed. Unless of course the gas is coming straight out of the ground and to a nearby turbine and the electricity straight onto the mains. But generally speaking its a criminal waste to be using gas for electricity when its so damn useful for on-site manufacturing (indoor forklifts and so forth) onsite heating (the only source that will give you instantaneous heat and then you can make that heat go away) and transport.
The other thing is that now that Palin is on board there will likely be a bigger push for nuclear power. The environmentalist movement is anti-sustainability. Since their opposition to nuclear taxes our hydro-carbon resources horribly and leads them to be used in wasteful fashion.
On the dark side there is this horrible McCain-Lieberman bill which will hopefully get killed somewhere along the line.
In Australia already we see the malinvestment of people getting ready to use our precious gas in turbines. Don’t let anyone stooge you that environmentalists are for sustainability. When they say “sustainability” it really means the destruction of property rights.
No Graeme, she’s an idiot. As are you.
CK
“No Graeme, she’s an idiot”
Based on what exactly?
If it’s only your political bias, you should just say, “I don’t agree with her politics”
But to call anyone an idiot without any evidence to support it, is childish.
Come on CK. Come out from under the table now. You can tell us who you are.
You are Steve Munn right? The mind of the psychologically sick leftist. The only thing thats keeping this whole fraud afloat.
Either that or I’ll bet you are some famous taxeater.
“Based on what exactly?”
Too easy, Jonothan. She’s a creationist.
CK,
Anyone who believes in the Big Bang is a creationist by definition.
You’re an idiot based on your number of votes at the last election. Which was a mini-referundum on Bird – onya bike you nutter.
Oh Luke. It was only because the ignorant voting public, as part of a giant conspiracy run by marxist otherworldians, and in an act of collective suicide, chose to deprive itself of Birdy’s shimmering genius.
New Scientist has an interesting perspective:
At least the George W Bush administration was consistent within itself. But with the new Republican ticket, we are faced with the prospect of a US president who is against drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge paired to a VP who staunchly supports it, and says the two will just have to “agree to disagree”.
“When it comes to environmental issues, the only difference between George W Bush and Sarah Palin is lipstick,” said Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, a local green group.
I disagree. Bush may have had his arm twisted, but he did concede that humans are causing climate change. It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009. It may have caused him to shun UN discussions on climate change, but his world’s biggest emitters committee did create a forum for China and the US to meet and discuss their positions on climate at the highest possible level.
The difference between Bush and Palin is not lipstick. It’s much more than that. Palin makes Bush look like a forward-thinking tree-hugger. To elect her would be to take four steps back after it took Bush eight years to take two steps forward.
Betcha Birdy has got the hots for Sarah.
CK
“She’s a creationist.”
While I couldn’t care less, it has hardly been proved one way or an other how the universes came to be in existence!
Therefor a matter of belief in a supernatural is as good an explanation as any other.
To call someone an idiot for that, shows very poor judgment at least, if not outright contempt for fellow human beings.
At the last count more than half of the world’s population declared themselves as believers in one religion or other, so calling all of them idiots is a tall call indeed! (or just plain stupid)
Jonathan,
Plain stupid is the correct appelation.
For those Peak Oilers, “Oil is Mastery” is a good blog which I recently discovered – put simply we are awash in oil – OPEC is imposing quotas and the Brazillians are finding enormous new fields.
And here we are, in the Anglo World, believing in the fable of biotic oil while the Russians laugh all the way to the bank.
The term “Plain stupid” is equally applicable to this situation.
Palin’s stance on opening up drilling is good news because with any luck it’ll force the AGW’s to have to prove that mankind and CO2 cause a problem. We know this’ll be interesting because (and they know it) the planet has stopped warming, is likley to cool over the next decade and their beloved computer models have been found wanting.
Unfortunately, most people don’t take close interest in politics and science until their livestyles are threatened. That’s happening now and I don’t think it’s going to be long before the AGW scam is outed
Probably explains why the Arctic is melting, NW passage is opening, and the permafrost is getting slushy. Socratic irony?
Luke,
permafrost getting slushy? Russians havea been complaining about that for centuries, along the the stink of the putrefaction of the Pleistocene mammalia buried in those areas.
Not new.
The NW passage was also open a century ago, and the British sent a scientific expedition to find out why.
I hope the Arctic is not melting, but that the ice is, and from Richard Branson”s son’s cancellation of his canoe trip to the North Pole recently due to too much sea ice, one can only conclude that your information sources are the computer models and not physical reality.
(Sits back and waits for the next Lukian Ad Hom)
“Too easy, Jonothan. She’s a creationist.”
I’ll bet you he’s lying about this. But thats the default position. That the environmentalist-leftist is lying until proven that he told the truth by accident.
Luke:
“When it comes to environmental issues, the only difference between George W Bush and Sarah Palin is lipstick,” said Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, a local green group.”
These enviro cultists are so original, aren’t they.
Bush’s environmental policies were exactly right. So if Palin’s are like his – all the more reason to vote for her.
“It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009.”
Smooth move on Bush’s part, since he knew he wouldn’t be in office in 2009. And he knew that the new president wouldn’t be bound to anything those representatives came up with.
“Palin makes Bush look like a forward-thinking tree-hugger.”
Where do you get the idiotic idea that Palin will not protect the environment?
“Too easy, Jonothan. She’s a creationist.”
What are you CK, a “somthing sprang up out of nothingist”.
We need a good name for these people that believe that things magically appear out of nothing.
Tilo thinks the earth was made in 7 days by an omnipresent deity.
Yes Luke. I’m guessing this makes me an E=MC2 cultist or Einstein religionist. Way out there on the crazy fringe.
Luke,
And you seem to think it came out of nothing 13 billion years ago. Apart from an enormous amount of time, the two positions are identical – so why the disparaging remarks about people who basically share the same view as you do – Creatio ex Nihilo
Except, Louis, one view derives from sound science, while the other derives from, you know, made-up shit.
“Yes Luke. I’m guessing this makes me an E=MC2 cultist or Einstein religionist. Way out there on the crazy fringe.”
Well the e=mc2 formula still seems to hold up. But apparently other people have rederived it without the overhead. Including Einstein himself.
But yeah. The big bang is just bizzare. The ex-Nihilo creationism of it is bad enough. But the stuff to do with singularities and “inflation” are just maths-boy 101 stupid-talk.
The Maori creation theory is more sensible and less self-contradictory than this maths-boy nonsense.
I mean you have the space expanding at zillions of times the speed of light and then suddenly slowing down.
You’d have to be some sort of nutter to believe the whole thing.
The history of it isn’t particularly encouraging. Fred Hoyle and the steady state crowd conceded. On account of their own maths not holding up. But on that slim basis the Big Bang came out ahead of this puny human contest and was locked in!!!
Why lock it in? Why not develop, encourage and lift up a new competitor?
Its only really been locked in since the late 70’s or so and now its holy writ.
“The inflationary epoch
Between 10-36 seconds and 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang
Main article: Inflationary epoch”
So we go to the main article and we find the following:
“This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10 to the power or 26 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10 to the power of 78.”
This bizzare scenario is needed to make the two theories they are building on work with the maths. And it is propagated by a bunch of people that think nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Or at least they claim this to the laity.
“This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.”
Right. Building on mistakes.
They reckon that this didn’t contradict the arbitrary stipulation against things moving faster than the speed of light. And the excuse is pretty simple. You see the space-time BETWEEN matter just blew up in some strange way.
Not that anyone has ever found any evidence for such a thing as space-time.
But they just keep building on top of silliness.
When in trouble just dive into maths equations seems to be the motto.
CK,
Oh really ? Both start with Creatio Ex Nihilo and this isn’t made up shit as you put it ?
Graeme
The PLas Universe theories are quite capable of explaining things in terms of known physics not made up stuff like black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy etc.
And to make matters worse for Luke and his friends, a couple of papers have been published documenting variation in nuclear decay rates that seem to be linked to the earth’s position from the sun.
So qiuite a few cherished dogmas are on the way to the intellectual scrap heap, soon to be followed by AGW I may add.
Louis,
“Both start with Creatio Ex Nihilo”
This is the bit I cant get my head around.
I have no commitment either way, but the way I see it, the “science” types are desperate to explain the existence of the universe by “scientific” means, for no more legit reason than to counter the idea that “God created” the world.
If we realise how little we know about our own planet, than it’s even more amazing, that they have the temerity to tell us how the universe was “created – came into existence”.
Anyone read this book? I haven’t, so a feed back would be appreciated
Eric Lerner “The Big Bang Never Happened”.
Cheers
I miss the preview function!!!!
Just a short blurb about the book I mentioned, it’s available in the Shepparton and Collingwood (what a waste LOL) libraries.
The big bang never happened
Lerner, Eric J.
Summary
A mesmerizing challenge to orthodox cosmology with powerful implications not only for cosmology itself but also for our notions of time, God, and human nature — with a new Preface addressing the latest developments in the field. Far-ranging and provocative, The Big Bang Never Happened is more than a critique of one of the primary theories of astronomy — that the universe appeared out of nothingness in a single cataclysmic explosion ten to twenty billion years ago. Drawing on new discoveries in particle physics and thermodynamics as well as on readings in history and philosophy, Eric J. Lerner confronts the values behind the Big Bang theory: the belief that mathematical formulae are superior to empirical observation; that the universe is finite and decaying; and that it could only come into being through some outside force. With inspiring boldness and scientific rigor, he offers a brilliantly orchestrated argument that generates explosive intellectual debate. From the Trade Paperback edition. Distributed by Syndetic Solutions, Inc.
Publishers Weekly Review
Readers inspired by Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time should brace themselves for Lerner’s larger history of time, space and a new force: the humanistic sociology of science. The timely news (making headlines as this review goes to press) is that the Big Bang cosmology can no longer contain all the new evidence astronomers have gathered about the physical nature of the universe. In fact, Lerner argues, the persistence of the Big Bang and other finite definitions of the universe is rooted less in data gathered by radio telescopes than in medieval devotion to the idea of the finite, perfectly ordered universe. Lerner calibrates the Big Bang’s development as one of the swings of the “cosmological pendulum” of science in history–from the perfect, mathematically closed systems of early Christian cosmos to the scientific revolution of the 19th century, back to today’s “Theory of Everything” in particle physics. Lerner’s own cosmology is plasma-based, an incomplete physics that includes electromagnetism as well as Einstein’s gravity principles at work in the creation of one of an ever-expanding universe, which requires neither creator nor “bang,” and is still evolving with humankind. Lay readers will need familiarity with the basics of quantum theory or a science dictionary to fully appreciate this grand tour of three centuries of cosmology, but this is an expedition of the scientific mind that includes all the grandeur, rigor and challenge to our humanity that has marked cosmology since Galileo. Plasma physicist Lerner holds open the door to one of science’s inner rooms for a popular audience. Illustrations not seen by PW. Copyright 1991 Cahners Business Information, Inc. From: Reed Elsevier Inc. Copyright Reed Business Information
Library Journal Review
From Steven Weinberg’s The First Three Minutes (Basic, 1976. o.p.; 1988. pap.) to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time ( LJ 4/15/88), numerous science popularizations have expounded the Big Bang Theory for the origin of the universe as indisputable fact. Readers of those books will find this one startling and intriguing. Lerner, a plasma physicist, points out flaws in the Big Bang model and proposes an alternative theory: an eternal, self-sustaining “plasma” universe where electromagnetic fields within conducting gases provide other, simpler explanations for observed phenomena. His contention that the Big Bang is merely a repackaged creation myth is presumptuous, but well argued. To present a current scientific controversy to a general audience risks, on one hand, misleading the public and, on the other, circumventing the peer review process. This book, however, makes valid points in a convincing manner and does neither. Recommended for general science collections. Gregg Sapp, Montana State Univ. Libs., Bozeman Copyright 1991 Cahners Business Information, Inc. From: Reed Elsevier Inc. Copyright Reed Business Information
CHOICE Review
Most astronomers believe that the universe was formed from a big bang that occurred about 10 to 20 billion years ago. Yet, others doubt this theory of cosmology and cite cogent, if not compelling, reasons to doubt this current mainstream of thinking. They postulate instead a universe that is evolving but is infinite in time and space. Lerner is a student of Nobel Prize-winner Hans Alfven and draws on plasma physics to provide the underpinnings of these contrary ideas. Although the big bang theory is certainly not totally accepted, and although the author raises many good points against it, the controversy remains. The book tends to ramble through accounts of the Bible and mythology, through the author’s personal views on sociology and society, to his strong adulation of Alfven. He presents strong views that his work is not being properly recognized. The book reads easily, has an 8-page bibliography, a 26-page index, and contains adequate diagrams and illustrations. Recommended for any intelligent general reader interested in cosmology, but with the caveat that the author’s views are currently in the minority. From: Syndetics Solutions, Inc. Distributed by Syndetic Solutions, Inc.
Jonathan,
I read Eric Lerner’s book over a decade ago – excellent book. (BTW I am closely allied with the Plasma Universe theorists).
Now concerning the bit you can’t get your head around – Creatio ex Nihilo – both the Big Bang and Creationism start from the premise of creation – something from nothing.
It’s a complex story but the train was set in motion during the early 19th century in England as described by Grinnell in his Article “The Origin of Modern Geological Thought”. The English Whigs were engaged in a battle royal with the Tories who based their authority on the Bible. The Whigs spent quite some effort to counter the Tory authory with little success until Charles Lyell decided to write hi Principles of Geology – the goal was to refute the Tory idea that monarchy was natural and Divine – and it’s easier to read Grinnell’s work on this.
The problem was that Lyell was as devout as the Tories and would not countenance any contradiction to the scriptures either, so he side-stepped the issue and asserted that the Old Testament was essentially literature, and thus allegorical. Compressing it here, Lyell shifted Creation from its Ussher date of 4004 BC to some earlier instant in time – by interposing a rather long period of time based on observed sedimentation rates etc. Darwin, part of this Whig group, then supplied a mechanism to explain biodiversity – evolution.
Later on early in the 20th century Jesuit physicist Georges Le Maitre, under whom Hannes Alfven studied, told Alfen during a physics tutorial that Le Maitre’s invention of the Big Bang was his way of reconciling his physics with his theology.
So the Big Bang is the same event that creationists believe in, except it happened 13.5 billion years ago, as opposed to 4004 BC.
So in a sense Big Bangers are liberal creationists while Fundamentalists are literal creationists. The problem is that Creation is not a scientific concept – after all no one was around to observe it to make an observation!
To my mind, neither is a satisfactory explanation because both are essentially explanations concerning a fiction, and thus in the case of the Big Bang, a rather technically sophisticated fable.
Mainstream science is locked into this fable and though the there is nothing wrong with the basic physics and chemistry per se, it’s the surreal geological timescale which is the problem, for which we can thank Lyell.
And it gets worse – a paper just published describes “Evidence for Correltations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance” by Jenkins et al, arXiv:0808.3283v1 [astrro-ph] 25 Aug 2008.
Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rate of Si32 and Ra226 have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory etc – the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance of the earth and the Sun.
So nuclear decay rates are not invariant and while this group has not made the electrical connection, (nuclear decay rates seem to depend on the strength of the electric field) they have shown that radiogenic decay as a dating tool now as serious problems.
I don’t think the AGW crowd will cotton onto the implications of these data for a while, but when they do, the edifice will collapse, as will a few other scientific assumptions.
CK…..”Comment from CK
Time September 13, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“Based on what exactly?”
Too easy, Jonothan. She’s a creationist.”
—————————————————–
Ummm CK… Do you believe in the “Big Bang” theory?
If you do. Then you too, are a creationist. 🙂
For a Universe to be created out of impossible maths of a supermassive singularity, by that very definition gives validity to the claim. That God, creating the Universe is a good a theory as any other…..
I would say Palin is broad in her interperatation of the bible as she is with the date of creation…. 🙂
It would be wise to check out what she actually believes in, before arbitrarily decided her beliefs for her, CK.
Or is this all a bit to much for you?
CK Is attempting to destroy the separation of church and state doctrine whereby the degenerate is suggesting that a religious believer is unfit to hold higher office in the US.
Piss off, CK and take your degenerate filth back to the huckster’s blog.
Anyone has a right to seek higher political office. It is what they do once there that is of consequence.
LoL… Good job Louis… I should have scrolled down before replying….. Looks like we ganged up on CK for his lack of logic in approaching the fundamentals of a Created universe. 🙂
If the Universe was created in a single instant, then if leaves room for a creator. I myself am not a believer, but I love pointing this point of view out to Atheists or to scientists that advance science into an all knowing deity in and of itself.
But of course CK will just scoff… It exists because it does. Nothing more.
Similar to I think, therefor I am.
Though unfortunately CK doesn’t think too clearly…. Which is our whole point. 😉
Louis,
Thanks for the reply.
It is a fascinating field to study if one can keep an open mind.
I didn’t realise the arguments go back that far in time!
As you pointed out, new discoveries are made every day, that’s why I am a bit disappointed,
that some people are absolutely certain that their, and only their, ideas are the valid ones,
whether it comes to AGW or the origin of the universe or the environment or anything else for that matter.
Open discussion without abuse, would be a lot more pleasant, but I think it’s too much to hope for.
Have good week!
Cheers
Coorection – the authors of the paper did not show radiogenic dating has problems per se, but that if the decay isn’t constant, then radiogenic dataing becomes problematical.
Anyway……. As for the Democrats new found faith in drilling for Oil…… All I can say is….
Drill baby, drill. LOL
Jonathan,
What some here don’t understand is that science is never static but always changes when new facts or discoveries are made.
All scientific theories are thus provisional because some day, some one will make an observation which will falsify the theory.
I’m fortunate in that as an exploration geologist I don’t tend to become attached to any particular exploration theory – I have had too many exploration theories falsified by drilling holes.
It’s the sciences which cannot easily perform experiments that are the problem – astronomy, archaelogy and to a certain extent geology – these sciences tend to stall in intellectual cul-de-sacs derived from a reliance of deductive reasoning, often forgetting that the fundamentals were never empirically verified.
AGW is a case in point – climate science has not yet realised that its primary assumption has never been experimentally verified – it’s accepted as fact by consensus – and as you can read here, once something becomes accepted as fact, its nigh well impossible to change their minds with contradictory fact.
The principal difficulty is the level of ignorance of the scientific method – it surely is not taught at school, and with the Post-Modernists controlling the universities, it has also disappeared.
Cheers
Louis
J.Hansford
Unfortunately I suspect CK has been trained what to think, not taught how to think. Introspective individuals are not required in the liberal world view – some of the nonsense posted in the Democrat blogs about Mrs Palin reported by the conservative blogs is quite interesting.
This vehemence to Mrs Palin in the liberal blogs is an indication that the GOP has truly spooked them.
J. Hansford,
one point I forgot to mention – if protons cannot decay into simpler particles, and this has not been observed, then logically one has to accept that these particles have always existed.
Therefore something which always existed has no age. 🙂
Ahah…….. Steady state?….. Or is their age simply13.5 billion years?
If a Higgs Boson is identified then, by inverse logic, some equivalent force must have put the quarks into the proton; maybe there wasn’t a big bang, maybe there was a really big antimatter Hadron like supercollider way back when.
J. Hansford
No not steady state, and proposing that protons might have an age of 13.5 billion years is a metaphysical idea, since we would not have any idea of what preceded the appearance of a proton when we are ourselves made from these particles.
I’m not sure how the number of 13.5 billion years was derived either.
In any case the term year is simply the period of time it takes for the earth to orbit the sun. There is an assumption that this solar arrangement existed forever. On what evidence?
Reading some of the texts of the Old testament we find ages of people which are clearly nonsensical in todays terms.
Assuming that our ancestors were not idiots, one is forced to conclude that this is what they observed and recorded.
This raises the paradigm unsettling possibility that their dating system was different to ours.
For example the Jewish people reckon their calendar on the lunar cycles. If this is accepted then Jewish ages of humans based on this method of reckoning would be different to ours based on a solar standard.
So what dating system was used to come up with 900 year old Methusala’s in the Scriptures?
A colleague posted this
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gzhqr188
It sparked quite a reaction among some climate sceptics.
I like the red nose on the Higgs probiscus.
‘ Ummm CK… Do you believe in the “Big Bang” theory?
If you do. Then you too, are a creationist.’
Errr, no actually. And the smiley is appreciated.
BB doesn’t actually preclude the existence of previous univereses. Quantum Physics 101. So I don’t dispute that the universe is essentially eternal.
We’re just going through a phase.
“Unfortunately I suspect CK has been trained what to think, not taught how to think. Introspective individuals are not required in the liberal world view.”
By which you mean, Hissink, that science is essentially a party political process according to yours, and Bird’s, and Marohasy’s world view.
How is THAT for leftist projection!!!!
No science is not a party-political process. Its UNSCIENCE that is a leftist thing.
If this wasn’t leftist projection on your part Munn/Quiggin/Lambert or whoever you are….. If you were fair dinkum, you would have the evidence.
So lets have that evidence right here right now!
So you will have Clive Hamilton, or Quiggin, Lambert et al all of the hard left. All practicing this unscience in parallel with a parallel campaign to pretend that other people are doing it.
So you get these guys talking about the Republican war on Science. Or the Australians war on science.’
When its really them. They are big on accusing people of holocaust-denial when they are all DDT bureaucratisation holocaust deniers.
So if you have got this behaviour in parallel with a campaign to pretend its the other guys exhibiting this behaviour how do you tell them apart.
We shall know them by their running.
Lets have that evidence now CK.
Thanks for that brain fart, Bird. What is that avatar exactly? Stalin?
Oh, and Bird, I’d really lay-off reading that Vogon poetry if I were you. It doesn’t do your thought processes any good.
Quiggin is a hard leftist? naaaaa Of course he isn’t. Quiggin says he’s a social democrat which means I have to take him at his word.
Louis Hissink said…”these sciences tend to stall in intellectual cul-de-sacs derived from a reliance of deductive reasoning, often forgetting that the fundamentals were never empirically verified”.
good point, Louis. You might include quantum mechanics in that group. Richard Feynman claimed it worked but that no one knew why. My own naive take on QM is they stole the equations from Newtonian mechanics and applied math (statistics) to them. They appear to have fluked onto something but the advocates claim it as a miraculous science and a replacement for Newtonian mechanics.
David Bohm was in the forefront of QM studies and he claimed both QM and NM had come to the end of the road. He felt the problem was a lack of understanding of how phenomena worked. In particular, he thought the inclusion of time as a parameter has mislead us and that we need to revisit the theories and find a better relationship between the phenomena we observe.
CK
Since you write mainly ad homs no further discussion is necessary.
Gordon,
QM is indeed a fable – but once you apply the theories of the plasma universe, where the laws of Maxell and Lorentz are applicable, things start becoming tractable.
Incidentally I believe David Bohm did work in plasma as well, so he was probably thinking along the lines of the electric plasma scientists.
“Thanks for that brain fart, Bird. What is that avatar exactly? Stalin?”
I can tell you this story. What happened is I hatched a plot with Anna at Larvatus Prodeo to dress up as Chairman Mao on the logic that I’d get more posts through the itinerant central-scrutinizers on that forum.
It worked like a charm until Mark finally got jack of me laying out too many home truthzs in his direction.
“Oh Luke. It was only because the ignorant voting public, as part of a giant conspiracy run by marxist otherworldians, and in an act of collective suicide, chose to deprive itself of Birdy’s shimmering genius.”
OK Steve. I know its you now. Only you can go from being so pointlessly nasty to being inspired in a split second like that.
“Betcha Birdy has got the hots for Sarah.”
Wow what a scandal that would be? Good-looking intelligent women just don’t do it for you hey Luke?
Everything is so topsy-turvy with you guys I suspect its mandatory only to be attracted to really dumb ugly girls. With apologies for the fact that they are female in the first place.
“Thanks for that brain fart, Bird. What is that avatar exactly? Stalin?”
Now I see this for what it is. Steve Munns bungled attempt at deep cover.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“The PLas Universe theories are quite capable of explaining things in terms of known physics not made up stuff like black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy etc.”
Right. When I’ve heard these guys talk nothing sets of the shit-detector. They were calling it all the electric-universe which sounded a bit simple. But once you got over that unfortunate phrasing, it was all pretty interesting.
Whereas the mainstream view is just one series of pathetic excuses and maths-boy 101 silliness from start to finish.
People don’t realise the arbitrariness of some of these developments. Like if Einstein had drowned at sea and someone had slipped steroids into Lorentz’s morning coffee then we could have locked in an entirely different set of premises.
Or if Fred Hoyle and his coterie hadn’t gone head to head with the maths-boy fantasists before the Hoyle team having their own ideas worked out much better……. than the Big Bang eschatology might not be locked in like the Church locked in the trinity dogma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing worthwhile is ever acheived by linear deduction that goes on too long without other tools being brought in. Always you put one tool down and pick another one up.
You may formalise a system of understanding from the ground up but thats not how you discover it. Always it ought to come from small models, attacking a problem from convergent angles, and thought experiments as much as possible.
People seem to want to argue that a tool is no good if you cannot do the whole job with it. Hence todays scientists put statistics up there as the real deal and simple thought experiments are looked askance at.
You never throw any of the tools away but thought experiments are the tool of choice all the way through the process because THEY ARE COST EFFECTIVE.
Thats not an insubstantial criteria. Though cost-effectiveness isn’t really held to be all that important these days. Look at that particle accelerator. What a waste of money that is. Criminal.
Geeze Graeme Budgerigar,
I hate to disappoint, but I’m not Steve Munn, whoever s/he is.
Thanks for the yarn about the avatar, all the same. Pretty funny really.
“Introspective individuals are not required in the liberal world view…”
Louis,
For a bright guy, a person able to think outside the orthodox cosmology box, for example, you display a stunning inability to think outside even less tenable containment fields. “Left” and Right” are meaningless labels; the flatland spectrum is only marginally improved by adding another axis between authoritarian and libertarian poles, as the folks at the Political Compass have attempted.
It’s all spectacle, diversion and distraction. Hence the “hot-button” issues where fundamentalists harangue other fundamentalists (I particularly like the rightwing creationists “battling” the rightwing neo-Darwinists for the sound of fury signifying nothing.)
Here’s the recipe for the future, folks:
Autonomy → Synergy → Infinity
Autonomy is not on the menu from either wing of the Party and never has been; the basis of the imperial hierarchy/strongman rule has always been submitting to the authority of the state because you just can’t make it on your own. Check out the history of energy scarcity and its manipulation in Edwin Black’s Internal Combustion for a nice example, but the same dynamic is true for all of our material needs throughout recorded history, whether we’re talking 21st century America or any of the totalitarian states of the previous century.
(Those needs, btw, are simply food, water, energy & shelter.)
Now, imagine the impact of a scalable, untethered, non-polluting and limitless energy source on our current socio-economic set up.
I mean really think that through.
And what if water could be produced in the same fashion, and food, and all the consumer goods a person could possibly need? And what if we discovered that certain synergies developed, just like in Nature, where symbiosis, all the way down to the microbial level, is far more the name of the game than the social Darwinist propaganda that modern hacks like Pinker & Dawkins are lifting their skirts to sell?
It’s all true, folks, every bit of it. Why hasn’t this “good news” been trumpeted throughout the world?
Well, some folks are trying to, but it’s still money–entropic, corrosive money–that makes the world go ’round, you see, and even if we let the 375 families who own 52% of the world outright keep their loot, they wouldn’t be happy seeing the rest of the world pursuing its happiness because power does funny things to people.
As you all know.
More clues for interested parties are available.
(And Louis, keep thinking. Special clue for you: All is One)