Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 1st, 2013 #261
Roy
Perception Manager
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tintin View Post

It would seem that what passes for "intellectualism" today, is really anti-intellectual.
This is a very good point.

What's so intellectual about saying that blacks are just as intelligent as Whites?

What's so intellectual about forcing hostile ethnic groups to live amongst together?

What's so intellectual about banning a historical subject matter (the "Holocaust")?

What's so intellectual about forcing the intelligent people to take positions below their skill level and allowing the unqualified to take leadership positions? ("Affirmative Action")


The opposition to WN'ism is actually anti-intellectual in their belief system, because what they stand for is unnatural, absurd and censoring. The kikeocracy actually puts people in prison for their words. That is the opposite of of what an intellectual should do. Today's so-called "intellectuals" exhibit a hatred of the truth and imposed their will at the end of a bayonet.

Just because the jewsmedia has its agents of deception get on the TV and wear suits when they spout their bullshit, that doesn't make it intellectual. Cultural Marxism is very anti-intellectual, and is a construct created to serve only jewish interests.

WN'ism at its core is an intellectual movement. It loves the truth and hates lies.

Last edited by Roy; March 1st, 2013 at 01:13 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #262
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance Stubbs View Post
Isn't there a difference between a civilization which sees its bloodlines go back indefinitely, perhaps to to some mythical event, and a civilization which can trace its biological history with a great deal of accuracy, back to apes living in trees?
Isn't the sense of awe in Being further removed in the latter case, as the mystery doesn't begin until you get very close to everything's origin? Or is there no substantial difference, as in either case their only concern is the "ultimate Why?"
I think the abiogenesis of civilization mostly just has to do with the amount of information available more so than anything else. The original story simply played into classical philosophy and biblical philosophy. Notice that the first story in the Old Testament documents the act of creation, which is deterministic, but then also documents the creation of non-deterministic will. Right away the author is aware of the same issue Plato was aware of - the world can be described in such a way to a large degree, but man cannot. So the old testament instead resolves to say that , well neither is Demiurgos, he's just the watchmaker and is just as free willed.

The New Testament was a rejection of this thought process, obscuring the issue with a flurry of self-contradicting facts and other subtle poppycock. So the ultimate resolution was - there is one god who is three people, and you have a choice to be bad but that was predetermined. Even biblical scholars can't get these things straight, so the strategy clearly worked.

Now skip forward to the previous century and let's look at the subject of this thread - Einstein essentially believed in the same philosophy as the old testament, just from a mathematical viewpoint of the mover being a mathematician designing precise equations by which the universe moves. Along comes modern quantum mechanics with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Bohr's complementarity principle which say that even if you really want to measure all the properties of what "should" be a single, non-statistical particle you simply cannot, because the act of measurement is the act of collapsing a wave function into a localized point (while it's other observable WF's instead spread out completely randomly, as shown in the Stern-Geirlach experiment) . The act of measurement changes the system, the system is statistical and non-deterministic. Einstein tried every argument he could come up with to discredit this, but they were all shot down, culminating with Bell's theorem showing modern QM to be the best explanation available.

So as you can see the evolution of thought has shown that the only physical determinism we can really observe is in statistical averages. That is, deep down it doesn't really exist.

I think holding onto finding the metaphysical why is a false hope. Metaphysics occur only in a person's brain but aren't applicable to it. That is you can create a cause for your actions, but you cannot create a cause for your cause. The same way you cannot create a primary cause for civilization (because it already is one) . If humans weren't capable of creating primary cause, they wouldn't be capable of thinking, that's why it's possible to accurately project it onto animals but not other people.

Last edited by Nigel Thornberry; March 1st, 2013 at 02:21 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #263
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
Tesla had it right. Gravity is a weak force relative to electromagnetism. But Einstein was obviously obsessed with gravity, thus the desire to explain
"energy" in terms of mass, and not considering EM. And how in the world anyone can associate potential "energy" related to a certain mass with the speed of light, is plain farcical to me.
Are you truly saying the above? You're jesting, yes?
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #264
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
Only in a very literal, material sense. Try to prescribe some kind of evolutionary motive to human behavior and you will quickly meet behaviors that don't fit.
In the physical sense, nothing "very" with it. Evolutionary motive? I do not understand the argument. Certainly there are a lot of behaviourisms which are not aligned with evolutionary benefits. Our behaviour, if and when not aligned with what we percieve to be of evolutionary strains or benefit, does not exclude us from the animal kingdom. We are simply intelligent enough to confuse ourselves into degredation, unlike most mammals.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #265
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
So you think an atom bomb on the moon would only be 1/7th as strong?
That's exactly the point, Sherlock. Einstein's E=mc(squared) would assert that, it's not me making that assertion. If that bomb weighed 700kg on Earth, it would weigh 100kg on the moon and therefore, according to your beloved E=mc(squared), would produce 1/7 as much "energy" on the moon.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #266
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
That's exactly the point, Sherlock. Einstein's E=mc(squared) would assert that, it's not me making that assertion. If that bomb weighed 700kg on Earth, it would weigh 100kg on the moon and therefore, according to your beloved E=mc(squared), would produce 1/7 as much "energy" on the moon.
It has the same mass you retard.

Weight is the force an object produces F=ma, the m doesn't change, a does.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #267
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
In the physical sense, nothing "very" with it. Evolutionary motive? I do not understand the argument. Certainly there are a lot of behaviourisms which are not aligned with evolutionary benefits. Our behaviour, if and when not aligned with what we percieve to be of evolutionary strains or benefit, does not exclude us from the animal kingdom. We are simply intelligent enough to confuse ourselves into degredation, unlike most mammals.
You only say that because we both accepted civilization as a primary cause. In another life the choice could have been different. That's the main thing - there was a choice somewhere along the line . The issue is that as soon as you have the choice to make a cause for yourself evolutionary arguments simply cease to make much sense. Do you have animalistic urges? Of course, how often do you not act on them? Often, no? Then it makes no sense to prescribe human behavior to evolutionary urges , clearly humans often ignore them by choice. Humans are capable of deciding for themselves, this decision making process is only possible to evaluate as its own mechanism, it probably did arise from evolutionary pressure, but it isn't controlled by it. Why it arose in the first place is separate from the fact that it's independent now.

 
Old March 1st, 2013 #268
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Are you truly saying the above? You're jesting, yes?
Considering it's VNN, the answer is probably no.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #269
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
It has the same mass you retard.

Weight is the force an object produces F=ma, the m doesn't change, a does.
How does it have the same mass on the moon when the moon's gravity is 1/7 that of Earth? That 700kg bomb would have a mass of 100kg on the Moon. Go ahead, take a scale to the moon and re-weigh it, heh.

Ooops, almost forgot : You retard!

ETA: BTW, who said anything about F=ma? Not me. Are you confusing F=ma with E=mc(squared)? You cannot arbitrarily substitute F for E, or a with c (a constant, unlike a). Why do people here always conflate these two equations?

Also, when determining mass, it was always done with a scale in my experiences. How did you determine mass? How would you determine mass on the Moon?
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.

Last edited by Walter E. Kurtz; March 1st, 2013 at 03:48 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #270
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Are you truly saying the above? You're jesting, yes?
That's exactly the kind of question that, I'm sure, Tesla heard more than once.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #271
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
When you hit a baseball with a bat you're adding a small amount of mass to the baseball through the energy that you transferred into it (this can be tested by heating water on a sensitive weighing instrument) .
Until you can produce your experimental empirical evidence that hitting a baseball with a bat adds mass, I'll call bullshit. Do you really have the empirical evidence and experimental procedures for this claim, or are you just posing another bullsh*t hypothetical?

I hate f*cking bullshitters. Produce your experiment's results so that it can be retested independently. Don't hypothecate that your boiling water example proves your claim, that don't fly as scientific evidence. Laymen should rightly call bullshit when you claim something as outlandish as baseball bats adding mass to baseballs and the proof is in heating up some water!!!!!!!!! Laymen will rightly ask what one has to do with the other at all, let alone how one is proof of the other. "Jewsus, man", they'd say, "you're out in left field!"

Heh, thanks for the entertainment, though. It was, well, .....different.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.

Last edited by Walter E. Kurtz; March 1st, 2013 at 04:51 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #272
Ian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
When you hit a baseball with a bat you're adding a small amount of mass to the baseball through the energy that you transferred into it (this can be tested by heating water on a sensitive weighing instrument) . The energy association E= mc^2 is thus associated with the energy stored in the mass.
Is it the case that hot water has more mass than cold?
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #273
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
When you hit a baseball with a bat you're adding a small amount of mass to the baseball through the energy that you transferred into it (this can be tested by heating water on a sensitive weighing instrument) .
(..... a sensitive weighing instrument)

Tell me, Nigel, what does your "sensitive weighing instrument" (a.k.a. scale) determine, exactly? Hmmm? Could it be "mass"? So, is it safe to say that scales will provide you with a thing's mass? Hmmm, now we're getting somewhere.

And don't be vague anyore, Nigel, we ain't discussing religion or some other similar bullsh*t. Are we (us goy laymen) to suppose that the results of your water heating experiment is an increase in the water's mass? Hmmm, OK, so let's do the same with air. Let's see now, hotter air = heavier? Simply stunning! What a revelation! Maybe that's the reason given by Egyptian officials as to why their hot air balloon fell the other day? Yeah, makes sense to me.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.

Last edited by Walter E. Kurtz; March 1st, 2013 at 05:06 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #274
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
Is it the case that hot water has more mass than cold?
The same must be true when air is heated as well, no?

Now, be a good little goy, just believe without question all of what Nigel says, after all, the great and powerful Man Behind the Curtain (aka Einstein) must never be doubted.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #275
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
How does it have the same mass on the moon when the moon's gravity is 1/7 that of Earth? That 700kg bomb would have a mass of 100kg on the Moon. Go ahead, take a scale to the moon and re-weigh it, heh.
No it would still be a 700 kg bomb because a gram is a measurement of mass, not weight. On the moon only acceleration towards the moon changes, nothing else.
Quote:
ETA: BTW, who said anything about F=ma? Not me. Are you confusing F=ma with E=mc(squared)? You cannot arbitrarily substitute F for E, or a with c (a constant, unlike a). Why do people here always conflate these two equations?
Incredible. You don't even recognize Newton's second law.
Energy is a force over a distance, Force is a mass times acceleration, weight is a measure of force, not mass . Mass is a measure of energy content and stays constant regardless of where you are, this law of conservation was known in Newton's time.

Last edited by Nigel Thornberry; March 1st, 2013 at 05:10 PM.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #276
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Are you truly saying the above? You're jesting, yes?
Fuck a bunch of gravity! Heh. I've got some N50 (neodymium) magnets. Now that's what I call EMF, baby. Gravity ain't sh*t to those suckers, heh.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #277
Ian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cumbria, England
Posts: 1,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
Yes, it is, and it has been measured to be so. Why do you think the coldest part of your fridge is at the very top?
A fridge is not liquid. In deep lakes, the coldest water is at depth. Hot water rises above cold.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #278
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
That's exactly the point, Sherlock. Einstein's E=mc(squared) would assert that, it's not me making that assertion. If that bomb weighed 700kg on Earth, it would weigh 100kg on the moon and therefore, according to your beloved E=mc(squared), would produce 1/7 as much "energy" on the moon.
Actually, I believe the inverse would be true. In a seven fold less dense arena, the bomb would be seven times more powerful due to the effects of inertia being inversely proportionate. There is seven times less opposing force.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #279
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
(..... a sensitive weighing instrument)

Tell me, Nigel, what does your "sensitive weighing instrument" (a.k.a. scale) determine, exactly? Hmmm? Could it be "mass"? So, is it safe to say that scales will provide you with a thing's mass? Hmmm, now we're getting somewhere.
The instrument determines force and converts it to mass by dividing it by acceleration. So technically, no it does not measure mass, it measures force.

Quote:
And don't be vague anyore, Nigel, we ain't discussing religion or some other similar bullsh*t. Are we (us goy laymen) to suppose that the results of your water heating experiment is an increase in the water's mass? Hmmm, OK, so let's do the same with air. Let's see now, hotter air = heavier? Simply stunning! What a revelation! Maybe that's the reason given by Egyptian officials as to why their hot air balloon fell the other day? Yeah, makes sense to me.
Hot air has another property that causes the balloon to rise - when air is heated it becomes less dense. It's an increase in volume that makes it happen.
 
Old March 1st, 2013 #280
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
A fridge is not liquid. In deep lakes, the coldest water is at depth. Hot water rises above cold.
It gets tricky because you have to factor in density. When water is very hot it begins to expand just like anything else, but if it's very cold it also has the odd property to also expand making it so that ice floats on water.
 
Reply

Tags
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 AM.
Page generated in 0.18228 seconds.