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

Old October 15th, 2016 #1
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 932
Jerry Abbott
Default Quora seems to have Jewish/Leftist Moderator Disease

I wasn't on Quora long before the leftist moderators there began hiding my answers. Here's the first one they removed.

Quote:
Why is Neil deGrasse Tyson special? I don't perceive him as being particularly intelligent.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson might be as smart as his reputation makes him seem. He’s “black,” or, rather, he is an American mulatto, as you have no doubt noticed, and it’s true that his race has an IQ distribution with a mean that is downwardly offset from the mean of the white race’s IQ distribution by about 15 points.

However, statistics say little about individuals, and even a generally dull race can have exceptionally smart members. To predict how many smart members a race has, do the following:

The fraction, f, of a race having an average IQ of x̄ and a standard deviation in IQ of σ, which is above the minimum IQ of μ.

f(μ) = − [σ√(2π)]⁻ ∫(x̄,μ) exp{ −[(x−x̄)/σ]/2 } dx

You can avoid integrating the probability density function if you have a handy error function to call.

f(μ) = 1 − { 1 + erf [(μ-x̄)/(σ√2)] }

The IQ distribution of white people resident in the United States has a mean of 101.5 and a standard deviation of 16.4 points. The IQ distribution of US-resident mulattoes (typical ancestry 80% black and 20% white) has an average of 85 and a standard deviation of 12.4 points.

μ, f for whites, f for blacks, ratio

100, 0.5364, 0.1132, 4.739
110, 0.3021, 0.02189, 13.80
120, 0.1296, 0.002382, 54.43
130, 0.04112, 0.0001422, 289.1
140, 0.009448, 0.000004593, 2057
150, 0.001552, 0.00000007945, 19530
160, 0.0001805, 7.315e-10, 246742

Given equal numbers of randomly selected US-resident whites and blacks, you’d expect to find 2057 whites having an IQ above 140 for each black you found who had an IQ above 140. Since there are about five whites for each black in the United States, a random sample from US residents would be expected to turn up about ten thousand whites having IQs above 140 for each black similarly gifted.

But a ratio of ten thousand to one doesn’t mean that the one does not exist. Of the 40 million blacks in the United States, about 184 of them would be expected to have IQs higher than 140 and thus be certifiable geniuses. It is possible that Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of them.

I have read a paper by Dr. Tyson on the extinction of light from distant sources by interstellar gas present in a great many dwarf galaxies arranged along the line of sight. There didn’t seem to be anything wrong with it. The logic was straightforward, and the conclusions were unsurprising. Dr. Tyson’s co-authored paper on the iron abundance differences in the galactic hub and in the galactic halo are likewise fairly simple deductions from spectral data on Fe/H ratios. Nothing wrong with it.

Whereas I’ve yet to see anything from Dr. Tyson in the nature of cutting-edge theory, or anything that would confer “great scientist” stature on him, he does appear to do basic data analysis without any trouble.

Ignore the scolds who have answered you here. It would be understandable if Dr. Tyson’s skin color influenced your perception. Blacks are commonly less intelligent than whites. You should, however, remember that Dr. Tyson is an individual who has passed through a considerable number of social filters pertaining to his education as an astrophysicist that would tend to weed out the people who could not get that far. You’ll have noticed that there aren’t many black astrophysicists, and that Dr. Tyson (and John Johnson) are part of a racial minority of about one percent among astrophysicists, though it comprises about 13% of the U.S. population. Someone who doesn’t appreciate the effectiveness of those social filters would likely judge those exceptional blacks who passed them according to expectations appropriate for common blacks and would, thus, be misled.
The Quora Moderators told me that this answer violated their "Be Nice, Be Respectful" policy. Apparently, I was not sufficiently worshipful of Dr. Tyson.

It wasn't long before it happened again.

Quote:
How did the Armenian Genocide begin?

Few people understand the true reason for which the Armenian Genocide happened. The most common (and mistaken) belief is that the motivation was Turkish nationalism. The promulgation of that incorrect view is largely the work of the Jews, upon whose ethnic relations most of the blame really does fall.

Because the Armenian Genocide was prompted, not by Turkish nationalism, but by the financial interests of a Jewish banking family, the Rothschilds. Although Turkish nationalism made it easier for the Rothschilds to manipulate the situation, and whereas a certain amount of ethnic strife preceded 1915, it was the meddling of these Jewish bankers that caused the genocide itself.

The Rothschilds owned (since 1884) the The Caspian and Black Sea Petroleum Company, which extracted oil from fields near Baku, in Azerbaijan, and shipped it over the Caucasus by rail to Batumi in FSR Georgia, thence by sea via the Dardanelles to their refinery in Fiume (a port city now called Rijeka, in Croatia) on the Adriatic. The products, including kerosene, were then sold throughout central Europe in competition with similar products sold by the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil company. The Rothschilds wanted to eliminate ethnic conflict along the trade route, and since the Armenians were the weakest party in those conflicts, the cheapest way for the Rothschilds to get what they wanted was to eliminate the Armenians.

There is a photograph taken by a German officer in 1915 showing a row of young women who had been hanged upon crosses in mockery of the Crucifixion of Jesus because they had refused to convert to Islam. Many of the Young Turks’ “infantry” were, indeed, Muslims. But Jews were directing the campaign.

In conventional history, subject matter that is considered by the Jews to be sensitive may be presented in a way that is either inaccurate or incomplete—or both. Either important information is left out of the historical narrative, or else facts are replaced by elaborate lies. A good example of distortion by omission can be found in the History.com summary of the Armenian Genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by History.com
On April 24, 1915, the Armenian genocide began. That day, the Turkish government arrested and executed several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, ordinary Armenians were turned out of their homes and sent on death marches through the Mesopotamian desert without food or water. Frequently, the marchers were stripped naked and forced to walk under the scorching sun until they dropped dead. People who stopped to rest were shot.

At the same time, the Young Turks created a “Special Organization,” which in turn organized “killing squads” or “butcher battalions” to carry out, as one officer put it, “the liquidation of the Christian elements.” These killing squads were often made up of murderers and other ex-convicts. They drowned people in rivers, threw them off cliffs, crucified them and burned them alive. In short order, the Turkish countryside was littered with Armenian corpses.

Records show that during this “Turkification”campaign government squads also kidnapped children, converted them to Islam and gave them to Turkish families. In some places, they raped women and forced them to join Turkish “harems” or serve as slaves. Muslim families moved into the homes of deported Armenians and seized their property.

In 1922, when the genocide was over, there were just 388,000 Armenians remaining in the Ottoman Empire.
As you can see, the article is reasonably explicit about the atrocities that took place during the Armenian Genocide, but it omits any slightest hint that Jews were leading the Young Turks or what the true reasons for the genocide were.

This is commonly the case with historical narratives concerning the instigators of the Armenian Genocide: the "Young Turks." What the historical narratives commonly omit is that the Young Turks were founded by a Jew who grew up in Italy, Emmanuel Curasso. Curasso set up the Young Turks as a secret society in the 1890s, beginning in Salonika, Macedonia. Most of the Young Turks, and virtually all of their leadership, were Jews.

This isn't really uncommon. The Jews have learned many tricks of political deception. They will go so far as to set up their own opposition, and, attributing its membership to other ethnicities—e.g. Muslims, Christians, racists—will later condemn these other groups for deeds that they, themselves, committed.

Here is a trivial example:

Most of the time, the corrupted version of history goes into the school textbooks unchallenged.

Assisting the Rothschilds wasn’t the Young Turks’ only purpose. They also wanted to undermine Sultan Mehmed in order to facilitate the theft of Palestine by Zionist Jews.

Many of the Jews among the Young Turks adopted nom de guerre. For example, the real name of the Young Turk writer known as "Tekin Alp" was Moishe Cohen. Also, the editor-in-chief of the Young Turks’ main newspaper, The Young Turk, was Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Zionist Jew who worked as a journalist in Italy during the 1890s and lived in Odessa prior to the Armenian Genocide.

So, really, the blame for the deaths of 1.5 million Christian Armenians doesn't belong to any sort of nationalism. It belongs to greedy Jews who wanted their oil business to enjoy increased profits.
Apparently, naming the Jew is not to do, especially if it is true.

This went on for a while, and most recently Quora Moderation imposed a 1-week ban on my posting questions, answers, and comments, because of this answer:

Quote:
Is racial profiling ever ok?

Racial profiling, like any profiling, is a valid statistical tool that is used to correlate people with behavior. It isn’t meant to predict the behavior of individuals, and it is wrong to say that profiling is “unfair” to individuals.

Profiling simply tells you where to look, if you want to find a specific kind of behavior with the greatest frequency. That allows administrators (and cops) to allocate their resources with greater efficiency.

Blacks are more violent than whites. Blacks are less honest than whites. Blacks commit murder at seven times the rate that whites do, on a per capita basis, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Blacks commit armed robbery at ten times the rate that whites do, on a per capita basis, according to the same sources.

In a typical year, somewhere between 12000 and 18000 white women are raped by black men, whereas, in contrast, fewer than 10 rapes of black women by white men become known to the police during a year. The black-to-white per capita rate ratio for the perpetration of interracial rape is about 3000.

I say it again: profiling isn’t intended to predict the behavior of individuals. It’s a statistical tool that tells the police where to look if they want to see the greatest number of crimes, and where to allocate their resources if they want to fight crime with the greatest effectiveness. The question of whether profiling is “fair” or not is irrelevant.
Quora Moderation sent me this email:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quora Moderation (email)
You are temporarily blocked from editing

We've noticed some of your recent answers violate Quora's Policies and Guidelines on Be Nice, Be Respectful. Quora works best as a knowledge-building community when its users are respectful to one another. Insults, harassment, and personal attacks are not allowed on Quora.

Because we've warned you before, you will be temporarily blocked from editing for 1 week. During this time you will be unable to:

* add questions, answers, or comments
* edit content (suggest edits, add/remove topics, etc.)
* interact with people or content (vote, follow, A2A, etc.)

Please note that further violations will result in the permanent ban of your Quora account.
I replied with this:

Quote:
Your “Be Nice, Be Respectful” policy is a sham. You use it to shield from criticism those causes that leftists don’t want criticized. Let’s not pretend here. You can’t point to any statement of mine that is either false, or else both irrelevant and impolite.

In the first place, truth has a higher value than politeness does, and I’ll be impolite on every occasion that politeness would require me to lie.

In the second place, you have been using your “Niceness” policy as a stalking horse, behind which you control the information that becomes available to the general audience on Quora.

I’ve been through this routine many times on many forums, and I know how it ends. I will henceforth do all that I can to spread the word that Quora is not a place where the truth can be found when leftists think that it isn’t nice, nor when leftists think that saying it wouldn’t be polite.

Last edited by Jerry Abbott; October 15th, 2016 at 07:51 AM.
 
Old October 15th, 2016 #2
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 932
Jerry Abbott
Default

Surprisingly, some of my posts were NOT censored on Quora.

Quote:
You might be wondering how the central banks in most Western countries evolved historically. Most people assume that their governments acted in good faith in the public interest and that these banking systems were intended and designed to benefit them. They could not be more wrong.

During the middle ages, gold coins were used as money. Gold is heavy, and thieves would try to steal it. So people who had a lot of gold, but who didn't have any safe places of their own to keep it, began renting strongboxes from others who promised to keep the gold secure. For a fee, of course. Think of it as a rented locker for gold coins.

Most of the people who owned the deposited gold were European nobles. Most of the people to whom the gold was entrusted for safekeeping were goldsmiths. And most of the goldsmiths were Jews. Whenever a European noble would leave some gold with a Jewish goldsmith for safekeeping, he would get a receipt for the amount of gold he'd deposited, and by this receipt he would claim his gold again when he had need of it, reduced by the amount the Jew charged as his fee.

As the years went by, the nobles discovered that they could use the receipts as money of the "bearer bond" sort. Whenever the noble wanted to buy something, he didn't like to go running to the Jew to make a partial withdrawal of his deposit—especially since the Jew was charging for that service also. Instead, when he made his deposit, he had the Jew write him receipts for 1%, 5%, 10% portions of the gold on deposit, which added up to 100% altogether. And when the noble bought something from somebody, he would sign over the ownership of one of these fractional receipts to the seller. By this means paper money came into common use. Originally, it was a certificate by which an amount of precious metal could be claimed.

For a while, it is possible that the Jewish goldsmiths were scrupulously honest in their accounting. Maybe. But things didn't stay that way. Over time, the Jews discovered that the nobles had come to rely on their paper receipts as money, and they hardly ever came to call upon him for a return of their deposited gold. By careful estimation, the Jews calculated that they could safely begin using about 90% of this gold as they pleased. So they began lending the gold to third parties at interest. The Jews had no right to do this, since the gold didn't really belong to them, and each loan carried a risk of default or of simply being stolen by thieves.

Remember that the whole point of the Jews keeping the nobles' gold was to keep it safe, in a strongbox, so that thieves would not have an opportunity to steal it. So not only did the Jews begin taking income from lending valuable property that was not theirs to lend, the very act of their using the deposited gold in this manner was a breach of contract with the nobles who really did own the gold. The Jews had begun putting at risk what they had promised to shield from risk.

More time went by, and a further financial development came about. Instead of releasing to borrowers any of the gold right away, the Jews started writing promissory notes on the deposited gold. That's a note that promised to pay gold to someone who borrowed it—from the Jewish goldsmith, who didn't really own the gold that he was promising to pay with. Instead of walking out of the goldsmith's office with any actual gold, a borrower walked out with a promise written on a piece of paper. (A Jew's promise was supposed to be "as good as gold." Go ahead and laugh.) So now there was, upon each coin of gold in the Jews' strongbox, two written instruments by which it might be claimed. The first one was the receipt that the Jew had given to the noble, whose property the gold really was. The second one was the promissory note that the Jew had given to a borrower. And both the receipts and the promissory notes entered general circulation as paper money.

Since the Jews had taken the step of creating more possible claims on gold coins than could be satisfied by the number of gold coins they had, there didn't seem to be any reason for them to hesitate about issuing a second promissory note upon each gold coin, and then a third, and so on. And charge the full rate of interest against each borrower, as if they could have paid them all in real gold.

But although each gold coin could be claimed by more than one written instrument, the rate at which the Jews had to produce the actual gold coins was low enough that they never got caught short. If anyone had known that the Jews would be caught short of gold were all of the possible claimants to present their demands, there would have been a "run on the bank" as each depositor and each borrower tried to make sure that he wasn't one of the persons upon whom the Jew would have to default. But by maintaining the illusion that there was enough gold to pay everybody, the Jews were able to continue making promises to pay that they could not keep, and so they were also able to continue extracting interest on loans of gold whose aggregate principal was several times greater than the amount of gold—other people's gold!—that was actually in their strongboxes.

This was sort of a gamble for the Jews, during these early days of the Jewish banking swindle. If the nobles and the kings had caught on to the Jews' tricks soon enough, then matters could have been set aright by sending the king's soldiers to forcibly seize all the gold and to execute the offending, presumptuous Jews. But the European nobility did not catch on in time, or else they did not see where the Jews were going with their scam and so did not muster the necessary amount of concern to nip it in the bud.

And so the devil's seed grew. The Jews kept getting richer and richer by lending out other people's gold, and lending it in several different directions at once, while the working classes kept getting poorer and poorer because of the interest that the Jews charged on their loans.

For an explanation of how usury impoverishes nations, see the video Swindling the Goyim: Secrets of Banking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9809ssT0DY

Eventually, the Jews had so much money by this means that kings who found themselves in need of funding started coming to them for loans, which meant that the Jews began to have financial leverage over the governments of Europe. Leverage that could be used, for example, to start wars. The Jews had an incentive to start wars because, being expensive, wars forced governments to borrow from them further and going ever more deeply into debt, which provided the Jews with an income from the interest. The more war, the more borrowing, the more debt, the more interest, the more wealthy the Jews got, the more the Jews could incite more wars, forcing governments to do more borrowing... and so on.

And that's why Europe's history went the way it did, for the past 400 years.

Several Jewish families, including the Rothschilds and the Warburgs, formalized their financial swindles as banking houses. It was still the same assortment of cheats and tricks, only now it had a patina of respectability from the spaciousness of the lobby, the sumptuousness of its furnishings, the dress and grooming of its employees, etc. And this predatory Jewish activity continues today as the Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, the House of Rothschild, and other institutions that might strike you as respectable until you know what they really are: huge financial frauds, the like of which the law should never treat with friendly hands, improperly, immorally, and treasonously given legal sanction.

Henry Ford, writing in the Cleveland News on 20 September 1923, recognized that the only way for the world to escape from the snare of Jewish finance was to round up all of the Jews who were involved in its scams and "control them"; i.e., either execute them or hold them fast and incommunicado in a prison until they died.

"Get hold of fifty of the wealthiest Jewish financiers, the men who are interested in making wars for their own profit. Control them, and you will put an end to it all." —Henry Ford

The Federal Reserve System never was intended to be a benefit to the American people. It was a continuation of a Rothschild project to bring the United States of America into the web of Jewish high-finance.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by a rump Congress during the Christmas recess in December 1913, while most of our national lawmakers were at home with their families. In its anticipation were made two changes to the US Constitution.

The first change, in 1868, was Section 4 of the 14th Amendment: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” That means it was to be unconstitutional for Congress to repudiate the national debt of the United States through legislation; the Jews wanted to block that means of escape as best they could.

The second change, in February 1913, was the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which enabled Congress to levy tax on the incomes of US citizens without bothering with apportionment among the states. When the Federal Reserve Act was passed ten months later, the conspiracy between the Jews who had pushed for it and the federal government they’d suborned into high treason was legally ready to put every citizen into a locked harness.

The Federal Reserve is the corporate top predator on the capitalist economy. Its victims are both ordinary citizens and corporations who must pay tribute to the FRS through income taxes applied to their profits. The corporations, however, pass along their share of the burden to the citizens via the prices of the goods and services they sell. This price inflation is one of the two causes of the steady reduction in the American standard of living. The other cause is the devaluation of the currency, the US dollar, which results from the government borrowing money that it can’t pay back, resulting in yearly budget deficits that add to the national debt, on which those who run the FRS charge interest. Devalued currency also contributes to the apparent inflation of prices.

Although the Jews had something like the Federal Reserve System in mind at least as long ago as the mid-1800s, the specific plans on how to inflict it on America were made in 1910, on Jekyll Island in Georgia, whence the conspirators sneaked, having adopted fictitious identities for the purpose, traveling separately to their rendezvous point in Brunswick GA, upon the pretense that they were ordinary fellows merely embarked on a duck hunt. They included Paul Warburg and Nelson Aldrich.

The current FRS chairman, Janet Yellen, is Jewish. She’s the 15th Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and the 7th Jewish Chairman. Of the remaining eight, two Chairmen were of near-Jewish ancestry. And we can probably assume that the other six were men whom the Jews believed friendly to themselves.

The population of the United States is 2% Jewish.

Footnotes.

Jewish FRS Chairmen: Eugene Isaac Meyer, Eugene Robert Black, Arthur Frank Burns, Paul Adolph Volcker, Alan C. Greenspan, Ben Shalom Bernanke, Janet Yellen.

William P. G. Harding and Daniel Richard Crissinger.

I’ve heard conflicting summaries of the ancestry of Roy Archibald Young.
This post has been censored on other Jew/Leftist run forums. I don't know why Quora let it pass. I mean, it tells more of the truth that is in conflict with lies that Jews have been telling, so you'd think it would be censored on a place like Quora.

Last edited by Jerry Abbott; October 15th, 2016 at 08:13 AM.
 
Old October 15th, 2016 #3
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 932
Jerry Abbott
Default

On the other hand, Quora Moderation did hide this post because it was, they said, not-nice and/or not polite.

Quote:
I used to have no idea what people meant by the term "white privilege." I'd heard it, but it never seemed to make any sense.

Now, it does. White privilege is an invention of propaganda. Its purpose is to make white people feel guilty, although there really isn't any guiltiness involved. No laws were broken. Nobody did anything immoral. So where does the “privilege” idea come from?

What the construction "white privilege" is meant to conceal is the fact of white superiority. There are no privileges that whites get just for being white.

The reason arrest rates differ is that the races differ in the rates at which they commit crimes. The incarceration rate for each race is proportionate with their respective crime rates. Anyone who tries to make an issue out of this is trying to deceive you; he's hoping that you've accepted the idea that the races are equals in their behavior, though, in fact, they are not.

The reason that penalties sometimes differ between, say, whites and blacks is that the two races differ in their recidivism, or the frequency of repeat offenses. It is a principle among judges in law courts to issue a relatively small penalty on a first office for a minor crime, but on the 2nd offense the penalty is more severe, and yet more severe for the 3rd offense. The reasoning behind it is that if the previous punishment didn’t deter later offenses, then a stronger punishment is called for.

Dishonest people often say that a lesser average penalty given to white crooks, as compared to that given to black crooks, is evidence of “institutional racism.” Nonsense. It’s evidence that blacks just don’t learn their lesson the first time around because of their inferior intelligence and poor impulse control.

[“Institutional racism” is another leftist propaganda construction, as are “stereotype threat” and “stranger-making.” Leftists invent these expressions to give themselves the appearance of having substantive arguments: to make it seem as though they have important things to talk about. They don’t. Nearly every talking point that leftists have is based on illusions of semantics or statistical fraud.]

And just about every “social” argument that you hear in support of the existence of “white privilege” has the same flaws. Whatever discrepancy between white outcomes and black outcomes the leftists point to, the actual reason for that discrepancy is something other than racism, something that would make good sense if you knew the facts more completely.

What else might cause someone to assert that whites are privileged?

We're prettier. That’s why black males seek the favors of white women so assiduously. The rule among them is “marry white,” and if white be out of reach, then go as light as you can. Black women are very jealous of white women, and from that jealousy comes a lot of spite.

We're smarter. We can do all kinds of things that the other races can't do. Or, in the case of the Asians, probably could eventually do, but haven't yet done.

Most of the top chess players are whites, with Asians showing up in the Elo ratings like brown sugar on grits. The blacks? Oh, there are blacks who can play chess. But if you match whites and blacks up by their percentiles in their own race, you’ll notice that white chess players have Elo ratings 300 to 400 points higher than the black chess players do. The best white chess grandmasters have ratings over 2800. Black chess “grandmasters” (yes, they were awarded the title) seldom have Elo ratings above 2500, which is supposed to be the minimum rating for the grandmaster title.

To the white race goes eternal credit for all manner of important "firsts," such as…

* Exploring the world and introducing all of its peoples to each other.
* Giving to the world its first civilization based on advanced technology.
* Spaceflight to orbit and to the moon.
* Exploring every planet with probes out to Pluto and beyond, into interstellar space.

The white race did all these things before anyone else did, and to this day most other races haven't done anything comparable.

We aren't "privileged" because there isn't anyone doing the privileging. We aren't the darlings of an over-indulgent god. We're better because we can do more. Because of evolution, we're born that way. We've proved it time and again. We will issue such further proofs as seems fit to us to do.

Since we can do more, we do more for ourselves, mostly. We aren't anybody else's slaves, and we don't owe other races anything just because they happen to be on the same planet with us. If they want something, let them make it. If they can't make and must buy from us, then let them pay our price or go without.

There is no such thing as “white privilege.”
 
Old October 15th, 2016 #4
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 932
Jerry Abbott
Default

This post passed inspection. Quora Moderation didn't find a single non-polite thing about it.

Quote:
If two bodies having total mass M are initially at rest and separated by a distance d, the time to fall until the separation is r, such that r<d, is found by integrating a differential form of the Vis Viva equation:

v = √[GM(2/r − 1/a)]

Since the apoapsis of a plunge orbit is twice its semimajor axis,

a = d/2

v = √[2GM(1/r − 1/d)]

Since all the motion in a plunge orbit is radial (i.e., there is no transverse component),

∂r/∂t = √[2GM(1/r − 1/d)]

We derive an ordinary, non-linear differential equation with variables separable:

∂t = ∂r / √[2GM(1/r − 1/d)]

where G = 6.67384e-11 m kg⁻ sec⁻

t−t₀ = √[d/(2GM)] ∫ ∂r/√(d/r−1)

u = √(d/r−1)

∂u/∂r = − d r⁻/√(d/r − 1)

t−t₀ = −2d √[d/(2GM)] ∫ ∂u/(u+1)

t−t₀ = −2d √[d/(2GM)] { ∫ [∂u/(u+1)] + u/(u+1) }

t−t₀ = −d √[d/(2GM)] { u/(u+1) + ∫ [∂u/(u+1)] }

∫ ∂u/(u+1) = arctan u

t−t₀ = −d √[d/(2GM)] { u/(u+1) + arctan u }

t−t₀ = −d √[d/(2GM)] { √(d/r−1)/[(d/r−1)+1] + arctan √(d/r−1) }

t−t₀ = −√[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r) + d arctan √(d/r−1) }

The minus sign indicates that the distance decreases with time. We can remove the minus sign by reversing the limits on the integral, and so we will, since we prefer our times positive.

t−t₀ = √[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r) + d arctan √(d/r−1) }

This answer has the advantage of being applicable when r is an appreciable fraction of d; i.e., you can still use it when r is not very much less than d.

If rd then the above equation reduces to

t−t₀ ≈ π √[d/(8GM)]

If we take the initial distance, d, of each planet in the solar system to be equal to the semimajor axis of its actual orbit, then we get these times for the planet to fall to the suns photosphere (r = 6.96e8 meters):

Suns mass: 1.98855e30 kilograms

Mercury, d = 5.79090e+10 meters, Δt = 15.5421 days

Venus, d = 1.07477e+11 meters, Δt = 39.3108 days

Earth, d = 1.4959787e+11 meters, Δt = 64.5601 days

Mars, d = 2.2792e+11 meters, Δt = 121.416 days

Ceres, d = 3.8262e+11 meters, Δt = 264.102 days

Jupiter, d = 7.78e+11 meters, Δt = 765.407 days

Saturn, d = 1.42939e+12 meters, Δt = 1906.76 days

Uranus, d = 2.87504e+12 meters, Δt = 5439.9 days

Neptune, d = 4.50445e+12 meters, Δt = 10668.1 days

Pluto, d = 5.90638e+12 meters, Δt = 16018.3 days

Note: The last time I solved the time-to-fall in a plunge orbit problem, I didnt do the integration as I did it this time. Instead of getting

t−t₀ = √[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r) + d arctan √(d/r−1) }

directly, what I had was

t−t₀ = √[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r) − i d ln{[√(r/d) − i √(1−r/d)]} }

But through Eulers theorem theres a relationship between the trigonometric functions (and their inverses) and the natural logarithms of complex numbers. In this case, the identity was

arctan{√[(1−x)/x]} = i ln[√x − i √(1−x)]

And, making the substitution and doing the algebra, we get, again, the answer

t−t₀ = √[d/(2GM)] { √(rd−r) + d arctan √(d/r−1) }
 
Old November 4th, 2016 #5
Paul Vogel
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 352
Default Most honest critics of Will Williams get banned at Stormfront

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott View Post
On the other hand, Quora Moderation did hide this post because it was, they said, not-nice and/or not polite.
The Quora is not the only forum that bans and censors the Whole Truth and facts either.

Last edited by Paul Vogel; November 8th, 2016 at 08:25 AM.
 
Old November 17th, 2016 #6
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 932
Jerry Abbott
Default

You can find a complete list of my posts censored on Quora, at

http://jenab6.livejournal.com/56378.html

Here's the post that got me banned:

Quote:
What will happen now that President-Elect Donald Trump has won the election?

The media are floating the idea that Donald Trump's voters are all uneducated hicks. It's the first of many gambits that the Jewish-owned mass media will use in the coming years in an effort to prevent Trump's re-election in 2020. Democracy, you know, is a good thing only as long as the Jews approve of its outcomes. When voters elect somebody or enact a referendum that the Jews don't like, well then, there's a "problem" that needs "correction" by federal judges or by whomever can impose and override the will of the people.

Look at a map showing the election results at the county level. If you know anything about demographic distribution within the United States, you will see right away that most of the Mexicans-in-the-US, the Liberals of the Northeast, and the blacks of the South tried to put Hillary Clinton in the White House but everybody else voted for Donald Trump.

Electing a black president who served both terms and who imposed on Americans a health care program that they don't like, a black president who didn't enforce the immigration laws and who, with great impropriety, met in secret with the Justices on the Supreme Court while there was litigation pending against him in that same court, a black president who probably motivated the betrayal by FBI Director James Comey with respect to his no-prosecution recommendation for Hillary Clinton, and who did many other despicable things (Benghazi) has cost the Democratic Party quite a lot.

And, besides all that, we still aren't certain that Barack Hussein Obama II isn't an illegal alien himself, a non-US citizen born in or near Mombasa, Kenya, in August 1961, who gamed himself into office, with the help of the Jew-controlled media, as a Usurper, or Pretender, to the presidency.

When Obama was elected, 29 state governors were Democrats. Now, only 15 are.

Ha ha, Democrats!

When Obama was elected, the Democrats controlled 60 chambers (i.e. House or Senate, there are 99 total) in the state legislatures. Now, they have only 30.

Ha ha, Democrats!

Today, there are only five states in which the Democrats control both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The Republicans control 25 states to that same extent.

Ha ha, Democrats!

When Obama was elected, more than 250 members of Congress were Democrats. Now, there are only 193. Furthermore, of the seats that the Democrats presently still have, 25 of them are up for grabs in the 2018 election cycle.

Ha ha, Democrats!

When Obama was elected, the Supreme Court was liberal and seemed likely to stay that way for a long, long time. Now it appears that before long there will be 7 conservative Justices and only 2 liberal ones.

Ha ha, Democrats!

Was it worth it, Democrats? You have had your black president. And now you're going to pay what having had him costs.

Really, it's a good thing that America finally reacted against what the Democrats were doing. If they'd had their way about it, the presidency would have gone in "civil rights" marching order. First, a black. Second, a woman. Third, a queer. Fourth, a transsexual who likes to have sex with animals. And so on, into depths of depravity that we cannot now even imagine. Thank goodness for Donald Trump. He might not be perfect, but electing him was taking a step back from the Abyss.

Imagine what might have happened if, instead, Hillary were elected and the progression envisioned by the liberals were allowed to continue its course. In another decade or so, we'd have a president who refers to his wife as a bitch, and nobody sees it as an insult because he really is married to a female dog of the canine persuasion. They plan to adopt both children and puppies just as soon as the Supreme Court strikes down laws passed in the states to prohibit human babies from being breast fed by female dogs. It might have taken a while for the Democratic leftists to take America there, but that is where they were going.
 
Old November 17th, 2016 #7
Jerry Abbott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 932
Jerry Abbott
Default

I managed to get this post on Quora before they banned me, though.

Quote:
Why do white liberals speak for black people?

Because the liberal whites are better-spoken, meaning they have superior language skills, as compared with the blacks themselves. And the liberal whites are cleverer liars than the blacks are. Thats not to say that blacks arent frequently liars. But blacks arent especially skilled in making their deceptions convincing.

Blacks make mistakes when they lie, and then they have to resort to intimidation, violence, and dogged persistence and repetition (chanting in large numbers) while pretending that their views arent internally contradictory, when, indeed, they are.

White liberals, full of sympathy toward blacks' ineptitude in creating their own falsehoods, are often willing to lend them a hand by offering them, and by telling on their behalf, a wonderfully well-crafted set of monumental lies sure to win the hearts of dishonest media pundits and corrupt judges.

Of course, some blacks might consider this unasked-for aid to be patronizing, and I can certainly understand their point of view. But liberals are liberals, and treating their inferiors with hypocritical condescension while at the same time assuring them (falsely) that they are just as good as anybody else is what liberals do.
 
Old November 30th, 2016 #8
Paul Vogel
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 352
Default Lying hypocrites, regardless of Race, make mistakes when they lie...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Vogel View Post
The Quora is not the only forum that bans and censors the Whole Truth and facts either.
Lying hypocrites, regardless of Race, make mistakes when they lie, and then they have to resort to intimidation, violence,
and dogged persistence and to repetition or (chanting in large numbers) while pretending that their views aren’t internally contradictory,
when, indeed, they are so.
See:
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=2...postcount=2780
till end.
And:
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1...&postcount=136
and:
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p...41#post2128141
and:
http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=399
and:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=2456
and:
http://www.narrg.com/2016/03/william...tery-of-woman/

Last edited by Paul Vogel; November 30th, 2016 at 12:31 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 PM.
Page generated in 0.12774 seconds.