2021·07·17 Joe Biden Didn’t Win Daily Thread

His Fraudulency

Joe Biteme, properly styled His Fraudulency, continues to infest the White House, we haven’t heard much from the person who should have been declared the victor, and hopium is still being dispensed even as our military appears to have joined the political establishment in knuckling under to the fraud.

One can hope that all is not as it seems.

I’d love to feast on that crow.

Justice Must Be Done.

The prior election must be acknowledged as fraudulent, and steps must be taken to prosecute the fraudsters and restore integrity to the system.

Nothing else matters at this point. Talking about trying again in 2022 or 2024 is hopeless otherwise. Which is not to say one must never talk about this, but rather that one must account for this in ones planning; if fixing the fraud is not part of the plan, you have no plan.

Lawyer Appeasement Section

OK now for the fine print.

This is the WQTH Daily Thread. You know the drill. There’s no Poltical correctness, but civility is a requirement. There are Important Guidelines,  here, with an addendum on 20191110.

We have a new board – called The U Tree – where people can take each other to the woodshed without fear of censorship or moderation.

And remember Wheatie’s Rules:

1. No food fights
2. No running with scissors.
3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.
4. Zeroth rule of gun safety: Don’t let the government get your guns.
5. Rule one of gun safety: The gun is always loaded.
5a. If you actually want the gun to be loaded, like because you’re checking out a bump in the night, then it’s empty.
6. Rule two of gun safety: Never point the gun at anything you’re not willing to destroy.
7. Rule three: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
8. Rule the fourth: Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

(Hmm a few extras seem to have crept in.)

Spot Prices.

Kitco Ask. Last week:

Gold $1808.90
Silver $26.19
Platinum $1105
Palladium $2903
Rhodium $18,500

This week, markets closed as of 3PM MT.

Gold $1812.20
Silver $25.74
Platinum $1105.00
Palladium $2712.00
Rhodium $20,100.00

Not much action this week, other than palladium taking a beating and rhodium staging a partial recovery.

(Update: Real gold can now be had for $125 over paper gold spot prices at places like Kitco. If you arent too fussy about branding you could get even lower (however, you’ll end up selling for less at the other end of the pipe).)

1905 – Quadruple BOOM!!!
(Part XI of a Long Series)


Let us start off by recapping our list of mysteries and conservation laws.

  1. Conservation of mass
  2. Conservation of momentum
  3. Conservation of energy
  4. Conservation of electric charge
  5. Conservation of angular momentum

The following mysteries were unanswered at the end of 1894.

  1. Why was the long axis of Mercury’s orbit precessing more than expected, by 43 arcseconds every century? Was it, indeed, a planet even closer to the sun? If so, it’d have been nice to actually see it.
  2. Why was Michelson unable to measure any difference in speed of light despite the fact we, being on planet Earth that is orbiting the sun, had to be moving through the medium in which it propagates?
  3. What makes the sun (and other stars) shine (beyond the obvious “they shine because they’re hot” answer). What keeps the sun hot, what energy is it harnessing?
  4. How did the solar system form? Any answer to this must account for how the planets, only a tiny fraction of the mass of the solar system, ended up with the vast majority of the angular momentum in the system.
  5. What is the electrical “fluid” that moves around when there is an electric current, and that somehow seems imbalanced when we perceive that an object has a charge? Were there both negative and positive fluids, or just one fluid that had a natural neutral level; below it was negative (deficit), above it was positive (excess)?
  6. Why are there so many different kinds of atoms? How did electrical charges relate to chemistry? How is it that 94 thousand coulombs of charge are needed to bust apart certain molecules (though it often had to be delivered at different voltages depending on the molecule)?
  7. Why were the atomic weights almost always a multiple of hydrogen’s? Why was it never quite a perfect multiple? Why was it sometimes nowhere near to being a multiple?
  8. Why does the photoelectric effect work the way it does, where it depends on the frequency of the light hitting the object, not the intensity?
  9. Why does black body radiation have a “hump” in its frequency graph?

I’ve crossed off #5 because J. J. Thomson’s discovery of the electron answered that question.

Because of Max Planck’s work, we had something that might answer #9, depending on how real energy “quanta” were. So I’ll leave that un-crossed-out for now.

And thanks to the discovery of radioactivity we had a hint of a sort of thing that might explain #3. But that’s a lot more tenuous than even Planck’s hypothesis.

With that reminder in place, 1905 saw the publication of four very important papers.

1 – Brownian Motion.

Brownian motion is the jiggling around of bacteria or specks of pollen when looking at them in a drop of water, under a microscope.

This paper used statistical mechanics to come up with a model for how often molecules of water might just happen to “kick” a small object suspended in the water. Statistical mechanics assumes that molecules in a fluid (gas or liquid) will have an average momentum with the particles distributed around that average. Max Planck (and many others) considered it a bit suspect, but today we know it to be the underpinning of thermodynamics. Planck, as we saw in Part X, had found that statistical mechanics could provide a model that would explain the blackbody curve (the Maxwell – Boltzmann distribution). By assuming that atoms could only emit energy in discrete packets, the amount of energy depending on the frequency, he was able to match the curve.

Anyhow, this paper showed that if water consisted of molecules, actual molecules, not just a convenient construct, and statistical mechanics were true, then Browning motion was explained. It had been one of those minor mysteries up until then (one which I didn’t even put in my list, but, let’s face it, I should have).

So now we have a paper showing that Brownian motion is actually hard evidence that atoms and molecules exist, rather than just being a convenient mental “crutch” to understand chemistry. And the position of statistical mechanics is much more solid.

So the last holdouts who didn’t believe atoms were real were finally convinced as this paper made the rounds.


2 – Photoelectric Effect

In Part 8, I described how Heinrich Hertz was able to produce, and prove the existence of radio waves. However, he had died in 1894 leaving a bit of a puzzle behind, the photoelectric effect (item 8 on our list of mysteries). Sparks would jump a gap more easily, if ultraviolet light were hitting the gap. Even dim ultraviolet light would have some effect. But lower frequency/longer wavelength light would do absolutely nothing no matter how bright it was.

What turning up the ultraviolet intensity did do, however was cause more electrons to jump the gap, resulting in a bigger spark.

So the frequency had to be high to enable the spark jumping in the first place; if enabled, the intensity was proportional to how big the spark was. If not enabled, no spark, no matter what.

Recall that with a wave, the energy in the wave is in the amplitude, in other words, the intensity of the wave, not its frequency. And Maxwell had pretty much demonstrated to everyone’s satisfaction that light is a wave. Newton had thought it was a particle but between Maxwell and certain earlier investigators who got light to diffract and generate interference patterns (and even measured the frequency of some forms of light), the particle hypothesis looked to be deader than Hitlary Klinton’s conscience.

But this paper begged to differ.

If light came in little pieces, and the energy in those pieces depended on the frequency, then the photoelectric effect made sense. If a piece…call it a photon…had a high enough energy, it could knock an electron loose and it could jump the gap in Hertz’s apparatus. If a photon didn’t have the energy necessary, it wouldn’t. And neither would any number of those low-energy photons, hitting different electrons in the metal.

But even one high energy photon would knock an electron loose; a bunch of them would knock many electrons loose.

So if light consisted of photons and if the energy of a photon depended on the frequency of the light, then the photoelectric effect could be explained.

But this bit about energy depending on frequency should sound familiar (unless you blew Part X off last week).

Yes, this paper invoked E = h ν. Energy depending on frequency, times that h constant.

And so Planck’s crazy idea that just happened to “fit” with black body radiation now also explained the photoelectric effect.

But even more: Planck had concluded that the quantum principle was a limitation on the atoms that emitted the black body radiation. This paper claimed it was a limitation on the light itself.

So now, we can cross off #9. And #8 as well, as a reward for our patience with #9.

But not in 1905. Most physicists rejected this paper at first, because it strongly implied that light was a particle, not a wave. James Clerk Maxwell had pulled together his four equations, after all, and other people before him had succeeded in measuring wavelengths of light. Something that makes no sense if light is particles, not even particles whose name begins with the 17th letter of the alphabet.

Hold on, though, before we go further. Is light a particle or a wave?

The best answer to that, after a lot of tussling in the early 20th century turned out to be: “Yes.” It’s not a wiseacre answer either, it turns out that light is either/or depending on the circumstance, or if you like our host’s formulation, “AND Logic” applies here.

The greatly oversimplified statement would be that light propagates as a wave, as Maxwell showed, but when it interacts with something (generally consuming the photon) it will behave like a particle, as this paper was the first to claim.

OK, that’s counter-intuitive, you say. Why yes, yes it is. It’s a particle sometimes and a wave other times and it will develop it’s sometimes got aspects of both. But physicists a hell of a light brighter than anyone reading these words (and I do read them myself, so I am not excluding myself from this comparison) have wrestled with this for over a century, and as near as they can tell, that’s Just. The. Way. It. Is.

They might pretend to understand it in a deep sense, but the more honest ones will tell you, no they don’t, in fact, they’ll even quote an old saw that if you think you understand it, that’s proof positive you don’t (this was from Richard Feynman). But physicists can describe the behavior to a T, with excruciating precision.

Incidentally, photons themselves have no mass, and no electric charge (even though they carry the electromagnetic force, they aren’t themselves affected by it). So they don’t interact with anything, until they hit something and are absorbed. And “interacting” with something includes being detected by it, like, say, being seen by your eyes. When your eye sees a photon, it’s now gone. Any photon you don’t see, because it misses your eye, is effectively invisible to you and you can’t know it’s there unless it hits something else and affects it in a way that you can see. There will be plenty of other particles that are similar. Many forms of radiation that go right through you, for instance, are harmless–it doesn’t interact with your body. It’s when you stop radiation with your body that you have a problem. (Note, however, that if a charged particle goes through your body, it can cause all kinds of havoc as it passes by, because it affects the molecules in your body, but in turn, you will deflect the particle slightly in the process.)

In 1921 this paper won its author the Nobel Prize. By then the arguments against it had largely been resolved.

BOOM !!!! (even if it was a delayed blast).

3 – The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

There was (and is) a conundrum in Maxwell’s equations. If you moved a coil of wire through a stationary magnetic field, a current is induced in the wire. The problem is, if you looked at it from the point of view of the wire, the effect is due to an electrical force. But from the point of view of the magnet, the effect is due to a magnetic force.

Which kind of force it was depended on who was moving and who was stationary.

However, we had known since Galileo that as long as you’re moving without changing speed, the laws of physics look the same whether you’re moving or not. He used the example of a ship moving smoothly through water. You can play dodgeball on that ship (including all that fun velocity, momentum, mass, and force) without having any way of knowing that it’s in motion. If people outside can see the game, they’ll note different velocities (because they will add the velocity of the ship to everything), but still see everything being consistent with Newton’s laws.

All of those things I dragged you through weeks ago work the same if they’re happening in a moving frame of reference…or not. This is now referred to as Galilean relativity: The laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames (i.e., ones not accelerating). He put this forward clear back in 1632.

So it shouldn’t matter whether you’re in the frame of reference of the loop of wire (and see the magnet as moving) or in the frame of reference of the magnet (and see the loop as moving).

Oddly enough, the fact that Michelson and Morley had been unable to tell any difference in the speed of light through a vacuum (mystery #2) no matter what direction they measured it in, turned out to be part of the solution for this.

This paper showed that if you posit Galilean relativity and that the speed of light in a vacuum is one of those things that’s always the same no matter what inertial frame you are in, then the conundrum found in Maxwell’s Equations is resolved.

The paper mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiments in passing; later on the author would not even remember he had done so. But their experiment strongly implied the second postulate (the invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum, in any inertial reference frame, even one that’s moving at near light speed as seen by us) is actually true. And indeed we have never, ever seen this fail.

I’ll explain later some of the ramifications of this. Get ready for a bit of a wild ride.

If you measure the speed of light in a vacuum, which is denoted by the symbol c, with perfect accuracy and precision (while riding your invisible pink unicorn, which came bundled with your perfectly accurate and precise lab equipment) you will get precisely 299,792,458 meters per second.

The invariance is so well accepted that now, the meter has been defined in terms of the speed of light. You’ll occasionally read some article claiming that the speed of light is changing. Although scientists are trained to never say never, they’re so confident that c does not change that they define their units by it–if they’re wrong about this it would wreak havoc.

I’ll have more to say about this presently, but first, a minor rant.

To the popular reader in America, the speed of light is often given as 186,000 miles per second. Of course, that’s an attempt to make it more relatable to us Yanks since it’s not in kilometers, but it’s still a fail.

We don’t think in miles per second. We think in miles per hour. (Unless, of course, we’re astrodynamics or rocketry geeks–but those folks have mostly gone metric, outside of some rocket production facilities.)

The speed of light is almost precisely one billion kilometers per hour, or 671 million miles per hour.

That’s not really relatable either, but at least when you read that you know just how unrelatable that is.

Most of us have never even traveled at the speed of sound (since the SST never really took hold). That’s 767 miles per hour at standard temperature and pressure (sea level or 29.92 inches of mercury at 20 C/68 F). Under those conditions, that’s Mach 1. Light moves at Mach 874,837.

It’s going to be a while before we get moving that fast.

The implications of this turn out to be staggering and mind-bending, and I’ve promised to try to walk you through them below.

But because of those implications, this is a BOOM!!! too. And we get to cross Mystery #2 off the list.

Now on to the fourth paper, in some ways the biggest BOOM of all.

4 – Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?

The third paper seemed to raise paradoxes, so the fourth paper took them on and came up with a surprising result, and I will try to explain that too, below. Here I’ll just state it.

An object, just sitting there, doing nothing, has energy. In fact, because it’s not moving and isn’t kinetic energy, it’s called rest energy.

How much energy? A LOT of energy. A one kilogram object, in fact, contains 89.875 quadrillion joules of energy. That will run a million 100 watt light bulbs for almost 28 1/2 years.

One very big implication of this was that mass and energy were equivalent, meaning that in some cases some mass could become energy.

But that violates the first and third conservation laws I listed up above.

Or rather, it combines them into a new law, the conservation of mass-energy. However, particle physicists just tend to think of matter as a form of energy by preference (it’s more convenient than thinking of energy as a form of matter) so they will still talk about conservation of energy, while never talking about conservation of mass (they see it change far too often…as you will eventually see).

Another consequence is that even a massless particle, like a photon, has momentum. If you recall, though, momentum requires both mass and speed. Well the photon has speed and energy. Energy is equivalent to mass, so it can have momentum. Which is why light sails work in space, albeit not very quickly; the sun’s light can push–ever so slightly–on the sail, which provides a tiny amount of thrust, without the need for rocket propellant. Because the thrust is so small, you have to already be in free fall for it to do any good, but there it is (oh, a super duper powerful laser might succeed in launching a payload, but we probably couldn’t power such a thing without blacking out the entire planet). But not having to put the mass of the propellant onto the space probe means we can launch a bigger actual probe, or launch it at higher speed, or some of each. And you get continuous thrust. It’s surprising how much a continuous small thrust can do over time. This is huge from a space exploration standpoint; if we can get into orbit we can potentially get places cheaply as long as we aren’t in an absolute tearing hurry.


And I do mean “boom” here because that kind of energy can be explosive.

As the Japanese learned on two days in summer, 1945.

Muck with America, and you just might get a physics lesson a lot more painful than any of my posts.

(Talk about physics lessons–right after I wrote that sentence a bolt in my chair broke and I got a few more lessons in physics.

All in 1905

All four of these papers came out in 1905. Some had an immediate impact, others were disregarded, because they were too outlandish.

But today they are all landmark papers, and 1905 is considered one of the biggest years in the history of science, on a par with 1666 when Newton had the key insights that resulted in the theory of universal gravitation and the spectrum and calculus.

Who wrote these papers? I never mentioned their authors, did I.

WRONG. I never mentioned their author.

One man.

This man.

That is a photo from 1904. One year before what is now called the Annus Mirabilis. He was 26 when he wrote those papers.

And in case you still don’t recognize him, here he is in 1947.

Yes, this was Albert Einstein. And he wasn’t done yet!

Oh, and the formula that tells you how much energy there is in a mass (or vice versa)?

E = mc2

The units of E are joules, which are kg m2 / s2. Notice on the right there is mass (kg) and a speed, squared, which is to say m/s, squared. The units match.

The units always must match!

If Albert Einstein had, after all his algebra, come up with some formula where the units didn’t match, he’d have known to start over. Or in other words, this could not have happened (but it’s too funny to pass up).

And yes, c is the speed of light. The one kilogram mass thus has, or rather, is (1kg)(299,792,458 m/s)(299,792,458 m/s) = 89,875,517,873,681,764 joules.

And this is a gigantic hint, as to where the huge amounts of radiation in radioactivity might be coming from.


Let’s recap/update those lists.

  1. Conservation of mass
  2. Conservation of momentum
  3. Conservation of energy
  4. Conservation of electric charge
  5. Conservation of angular momentum
  6. (ADD:) Conservation of mass-energy

The following mysteries were unanswered at the end of 1894.

  1. Why was the long axis of Mercury’s orbit precessing more than expected, by 43 arcseconds every century? Was it, indeed, a planet even closer to the sun? If so, it’d have been nice to actually see it.
  2. Why was Michelson unable to measure any difference in speed of light despite the fact we, being on planet Earth that is orbiting the sun, had to be moving through the medium in which it propagates?
  3. What makes the sun (and other stars) shine (beyond the obvious “they shine because they’re hot” answer). What keeps the sun hot, what energy is it harnessing?
  4. How did the solar system form? Any answer to this must account for how the planets, only a tiny fraction of the mass of the solar system, ended up with the vast majority of the angular momentum in the system.
  5. What is the electrical “fluid” that moves around when there is an electric current, and that somehow seems imbalanced when we perceive that an object has a charge? Were there both negative and positive fluids, or just one fluid that had a natural neutral level; below it was negative (deficit), above it was positive (excess)?
  6. Why are there so many different kinds of atoms? How did electrical charges relate to chemistry? How is it that 94 thousand coulombs of charge are needed to bust apart certain molecules (though it often had to be delivered at different voltages depending on the molecule)?
  7. Why were the atomic weights almost always a multiple of hydrogen’s? Why was it never quite a perfect multiple? Why was it sometimes nowhere near to being a multiple?
  8. Why does the photoelectric effect work the way it does, where it depends on the frequency of the light hitting the object, not the intensity?
  9. Why does black body radiation have a “hump” in its frequency graph?

Almost all of those crossoffs are Einstein’s work.

Even better, two and a half of the rest of the items will get crossed off in the future, either by Einstein, or by people using what he did in 1905.

Boom!!! Boom!!! Boom!!! and KABOOM!!!!

Physics Demo, Nagasaki, Japan, August 9, 1945

Special Relativity

The third and fourth of Einstein’s 1905 papers were on what we today call “Special Relativity” and some of its implications. It’s “special” relativity, because it applies only to inertial reference frames, a “General” theory of relativity would apply even to accelerating reference frames.

I’m going to be honest with you, this won’t be easy to explain, and it won’t be easy to understand, either. So let us gird our loins, and jump in.

The two postulates are 1) that the laws of physics are the same in any inertial reference frame, and 2) that the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is the same in any inertial reference frame.

The first was and is utterly uncontroversial. Galileo had used the example of a smoothly moving ship (as in sea vessel) to explain it clear back in 1632. (The only thing that had changed by 1905 was that people would used moving trains to visualize the principle. Gotta keep up with progress. Nowadays we use rocket ships or airplanes. But we’ll stick to vintage 1905 imagery for now.)

The second postulate doesn’t sound too crazy, either, right? If you’re standing on a train, moving at, say, 60 percent of the speed of light and aim a laser pointer directly ahead, and light it off, you expect it to look to you like it’s moving away at the speed of light. And the same if you fire it sideways, or backwards. Just as if you were firing a gun, or throwing a baseball. (Nor does it matter if you’re doing something distinctly less American.) You shouldn’t be able to tell the train is moving, or in which direction, just by the way the light, or bullet, or baseball (or, egad, soccer ball) behaves.

And likewise, if you’re instead standing on the railway station platform. Things should look the same there, too. You can’t tell which frame of reference is moving, because there is no “God’s Eye point of view” fixed, absolute reference frame. Any such frame can be treated as if it were fixed and the rest of the universe were moving.

Yes, that seems reasonable. But this will not: If you’re standing on the train and point the laser pointer straight ahead, and turn it on, not only will you measure its speed as c, but so will someone standing on the railroad platform!!! Now, you would expect the guy on the railroad platform to measure 0.6c + 1.0c = 1.6c for the speed of the light beam coming off the laser pointer, but he does not. He measures it as c. You cannot just add the velocities together, as you do for baseballs and bullets and trains. When I said “the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is the same in any inertial reference frame,” I meant it, thoroughly. It applies even to a beam of light starting in some other reference frame!

How can this be?

Velocity, remember, is distance over time. If the velocity stays the same no matter what, perhaps the time and distance don’t.

Time Dilation

Well, let’s think about this somewhat mathematically. Light travels a bit less than a foot in a billionth of a second (a nanosecond). So I’m going to actually define a new unit of length, a bit less than a foot, the distance light travels in a billionth of a second. I am going to call it a pod (from the Greek for “foot,” as in tripod and bipod, to say nothing of tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)). Expressed in pods, then, c is 1 pod per nanosecond ( 1 pod/ns ).

So returning to our 0.6c train, in the time it takes light to move ten pods’ distance (a hundred-millionth of a second), the train moves 6 pods’ distance.

Imagine the inside of the train car is 8 pods high, and call that distance L. Your friend is in the train, and he sets a laser pointer on the floor, pointing straight up. On the ceiling is a mirror, and the pointer also has a detector in it, waiting for the reflected beam. He sets the laser pointer to fire a very short burst instead of continuous beam.

He fires it off, the pulse goes straight up, bounces off the mirror, and comes straight back down. Total trip, 16 pods, total time 16 nanoseconds. Like in the picture below:

Figure 11-3 illustration of what the guy on the train sees. Round trip time is 2 x L / c, and L is 8 pods. C is 1 pod per nanosecond.

But what do you, standing on the railway platform, see?

You see the pulse of light traveling from the floor of the train, up at a slant to hit the mirror on the ceiling (because the train is moving, remember), then back down at the same slant to hit the detector.

Figure 11-4 – Someone standing on the railway platform sees the pulse of light leave the laser pointer when the train is at A, hit the mirror on the ceiling when the train’s ceiling is at is at B, then hit the detector when the train has gotten to C. The total distance traveled is 2D, D is the hypotenuse of a right triangle.

Rather than turn this into a story problem and ask you to figure out how long D and 1/2 v delta t prime is, I’ll give it to you. D is 10 pods long. The train moves 60 percent as fast, so going from A to B it moves 6 pods. The light beam travels a total of 20 pods (10 each way). So our lengths are 8, 6 and 10 pods (and our times are 8, 6 and 10 nanoseconds). This is consistent with Pythagoras:

c2 = a2 + b2
102 = 82 + 62

You measure the pulse’s speed as c, and measure the time it took to be 20 nanoseconds.

The same trip took 16 nanoseconds as far as the man on the train is concerned, and 20 nanoseconds as far as you are concerned.

This is not an illusion. If you could see a clock running on that train as it went past, it would show as running 20 percent slow. Time would actually be slower on the train, as seen from outside the train.

If this seems totally against your intuition–that time can literally crawl just because of how fast you’re moving, you’re not alone. You never see that in real life.

But in real life you don’t move close to light speed, either!

This is time dilation. It’s absolutely real, and has been confirmed again and again and again in experiments for the last 116 years.

And you thought time zones were bad.

Given something moving past at some speed, how much is the time dilation? Gee, I think it’s time for some algebra. I’m going to call the time running on the train tt, the time on the platform tp, and the speed of the train vp (v as seen from the platform. vt, the speed of the train seen from the train, is, of course, zero.) I’m doing this instead of what’s in the diagrams because I find it hard to keep track of what the tick mark means (and I think these diagrams are using it for the other side of things than my physics textbook did, to boot).

OK, so the time measured on the train is:

tt = 2L/c.

Pretty simple.

For you on the platform, you need 2D, and you can get there with a right triangle and Pythagoras, solving for D (which is ctp/2)

[ctp/2]2 = L2 + [tpvp/2]2

So let’s do some cleanup here. First multiply everything by 4, it will get the two-squareds out of the denominators.

[ctp]2 = 4L2 + [tpvp]2

Then divide by c2 and just write out all the squareds in full:

tp2 = 4L2/c2 + [tpvp/c]2
tp2 = 4L2/c2 + tp2vp2/c2

Now bring the tp2vp2/c2 on the right over to the left.

tp2tp2vp2/c2 = 4L2/c2

Factor out the tp2:

tp2[ 1 – vp2/c2] = 4L2/c2

Divide both sides by what’s in the square brackets.

tp2 = 4L2/c2 ( 1/[ 1 – vp2/c2] )

Now take the square root of both sides.

tp = 2L/c ( 1/sqrt[ 1 – vp2/c2] )

But, going way back, the guy on the train measured the total time as tt = 2L/c, so:

tp = tt ( 1/sqrt[ 1 – vp2/c2] )

That whole thing inside the parentheses shows up again and again, so it’s often written as gamma (γ).

tp = γtt

Let’s check this against our original specific example, of the train moving at 60 percent of c.

vp/c is 0.6. Square this, and get 0.36. Subtract from one, get 0.64. Take the square root, get 0.8. Divide that into one, get 1.25–that’s γ. And indeed the time on the platform, 20 ns, is 1.25 times the time measured on the train, 16 ns. Cool!

Let’s examine γ some more:

γ = 1/sqrt[ 1 – vp2/c2]

When v is very, very low, like, say walking speed which is about one billionth of c, then v/c is a small, small fraction, and if you square it, it gets even smaller, it’s now a quintillionth. Subtract from one, and you still get, basically, one, as close as you can measure it, just a bit under. Take the square root and you get even closer to 1, and when you divide that into one, you get a number just a teensy bit over one. So both times are so close to being the same, you can’t tell the difference. And this is what you see in everyday life.

Now set vp to 86.6 percent of the speed of light. Dividing by C of course you get .866; square it and you get .75, subtract from one and get .25, take the square root of that, get 1/2, divide into 1 to get 2. Two hours, two years, pass on the platform for every hour or year on the train.

Note that you have to get to over 86 percent of the speed of light just to make γ equal to 2. After that, though, it takes off. At 99 percent of light speed, γ is 7. At 99.9 percent of light speed, γ is 22.3. Which means the entire Barack Obola administration, which was about 22.3 years long [wasn’t it?], could have gone by in one year.

The number explodes the closer you get to light speed. When actually at light speed, the part inside the square root sign becomes zero, and you are dividing 1 by zero. Technically you’re not supposed to say “that’s infinity”, but that’s basically what it is.

γ is always one or more. Sometimes a lot more.

OK, if you’ve thought about this a bit, you’ve probably come up with an objection to this.

If I see the train traveling at 0.6c and its clocks are running slow, how about what the people on the train see when they look at the big clock on the station tower, as they move past it? From their point of view, the station is moving at 0.6c (albeit backwards); shouldn’t they see its clock run slow, too?

Yes, they do.

Doesn’t that seem contradictory, though? How can you have two clocks, and each one is slower than the other?

I don’t have a good intuitive explanation of this one, and the one I found on wikipedia is kind of weak, too (they drew an analogy to two people far apart both looking small to each other). The fancy explanation is, you can’t really get into a contradiction until you bring the two clocks close to each other, stationary with respect to each other, and check total elapsed time. But doing that means you have to decelerate one (or both) of the clocks, and once you’ve done that you’re not dealing with inertial rest frames any more. The frame that accelerated is now a different case from the one that didn’t, they’re not symmetric any more and one clock can indeed mark off less total time than the other without it being a contradiction.

I’m sure you’ve heard about the “twins paradox” too. One twin gets on a starship, takes a long journey at close to the speed of light, comes back, and he ends up being younger than the other twin, who stayed behind. The same objection seemingly applies. From the point of view of the traveling twin, the guy who stayed behind traveled away from him and came back, why isn’t he the younger one, or better yet, why are they not the same age at the end?

The reason why is because the traveling twin accelerated, decelerated at his destination, accelerated to come back, and decelerated to arrive back here on Earth. He was not in an inertial frame, but the stay-behind twin was.

That sounds pretty arbitrary and lazy, but the more detailed answer involves going back to our train and railway platform, and demonstrating that two events in two different locations that seem simultaneous to someone at the platform will not seem simultaneous to someone on the train…and vice versa. I’ll talk about that in a moment, but first there’s something else to get out of the way.

Length Contraction

Imagine a passenger on that train…the one moving at 0.6c. He’s going to a destination six trillion pods away. Light covers a billion pods a second, so light would cover this distance in six thousand seconds (less than two hours). The train, though is moving at .6c and conveniently will take exactly ten thousand seconds to make the trip. But the clock on the train is running slower, it’s running at 80 percent of the speed of the clock at the station. The people on the train will perceive that 8000 seconds have gone by when they reach their destination. But the train measures the rest of the world’s velocity as .6c backwards. Multiplying the time by the velocity, they will think the trip was only 4.8 trillion pods (4/5ths) as far.

This is length contraction.

This too is symmetrical. The people on the train see the world shortened in the direction of travel. But the people on the ground see the train shortened in the direction of travel, too. Remember, from the standpoint of the train, the clock on the platform is running slowly as the train goes by, so it must take less time for those people on the platform to see the train go by, than it would otherwise. So they see the train 20 percent shorter than it would be, were it standing right next to the platform at rest.

In fact if lt is the length of the train, as seen on the train, and lp is the length of the train as seen from the platform:

lp = lt/γ

This time you divide by gamma. And again, this effect is totally immeasurable and imperceptible at day-to-day speeds, but it’s as real as Joe’s pedophilia at close to light speed. Again, it has been measured, time and time again.


Now it’s kind of hard to get a handle on “simultaneous.” How can you tell that two events happening fairly far away (but in different directions) are simultaneous? If there is a flash of light to the north, and another to the south, how can you decide they’re simultaneous, when you know it took some amount of time for the light from the two events to reach you?

Well, the simple case is if you’re halfway between the two events. The light from both should arrive at the same time if they’re simultaneous, because in both cases they had to travel the same distance. Similarly, if you know the distances to the events, you can simply correct for light speed delay even if they’re not equidistant from you, figure out when the events happened by subtracting the delay from when you saw it happen, and compare.

OK, let’s go back to the railway station.

You set up a pair of sensors. When the train reaches the sensor, it will flash green. When it passes the sensor (i.e., the sensor sees that there is no train right there any more) it will flash red.

Now you set the sensors as far apart as the length of the train, on the edge of the platform (after figuring in its contraction).

You stand precisely in between the sensors.

When the train reaches the first sensor, it flashes green. When it reaches the second sensor, that sensor flashes green, but the train is just finishing passing the first sensor, so it flashes red at the same time. You see the red flash and the green flash simultaneously, and you know you’re standing exactly midway between them, so you conclude that you got the two sensors at the right distance because the train started passing one at the same instant it finished passing the other.

Figure 11-5 A. Train approaches first sensor at .6 c.
B. Train reaches the first sensor, it lights green
C. Train now reaches the second sensor, which lights green, and is done passing the first sensor, which lights red. There is a clock at each sensor that reads midnight at this moment.
D. The man on the train sees the green flash from sensor 2, but NOT the red flash from sensor 1 even though he was midway between them when they flashed. He also sees that the clock at sensor 2 shows it is midnight.
E. The man on the platform sees both sensor flashes at the same time, and he says, ah, ha! I’m halfway in between them so I know they both fired simultaneously. They both show midnight. Meanwhile the man on the train still hasn’t seen sensor 1 flash. When he finally does, he’ll see it says midnight and he’ll conclude that sensor 2 (which from his point of view is chasing sensor 1) has a clock that is running fast compared to Sensor 1.

What about someone standing in the middle of the train? He is moving toward the second beacon as it flashes green, and away from the first beacon as it flashes red. He will therefore see the green flash before the red flash. At the time you see them both flash, he is already down the track, and therefore must have seen the green flash already! Since he knows he was midway between the beacons (from his viewpoint one was at the front of the train, the other at the back), and he knows the speed of light is a constant, he concludes that the two flashes were not simultaneous, the green flash from the front of the train came first.

This is actually consistent with the length contraction of the station that he sees. He sees that the sensors are too close together because of the length contraction, thus the front of the train reached the second sensor before the back of the train reached the (too close) first sensor. Thus the first sensor fires its red flash after the second sensor fires its green flash. And that is precisely what he saw happen.

If you are thinking that this is an artifact of the fact that the train is moving and the platform is stationary, think again. From the standpoint of the train, the train is stationary and the platform is moving. From the standpoint of a third party, they might both be moving while that third party is at rest.

None of these reference frames is any better or “truer” than the others. That’s what the Galilean equivalence means. You can’t even tell which one is moving by measuring how fast light moves in the stationary aether…as Michelson and Morley demonstrated (to their puzzlement at the time)…because there is no stationary aether.

Imagine that there is a clock right next to each sensor, and that the train passed them at midnight, precisely. The guy on the train will see the second clock the same time he sees the green flash, and it will say midnight. Later on he will see the red flash from the first sensor, and see that the clock there reads midnight. From his standpoint the clock that passed him first (going backwards) at sensor one, is lagging behind the clock that is “chasing” it (clock and sensor #2). And the formula for just how far off they are is:

t2 – t1 = L v /c2

Here L is the length of the train, as seen on the train. In other words, the length of the train when you don’t see it as moving, because if you see it moving, its length will contract. The answer is how far the second (chasing) clock is ahead of the first (leading) clock in the train’s reference frame, when the two clocks are synchronized in their own (platform) reference frame.

If the train is 60 pods long, those two clocks will seem to be off by: 60 x 0.6pod/ns divided by 1 pod2/nsec2 = 36 nanoseconds, which given how fast things are moving and how short our time scale is, is very significant. The train requires 100 ns to move its length, and the apparent discrepancy in the clocks is over a third that much.

The Twins Paradox

Now we can go back to the “twins paradox.” Let’s say the ship is going to Sirius, which close to 8 light years away (we’ll ignore the difference for purposes of illustration). A light year is the distance light travels in a year, so light would take eight years to make the trip. From d = vt, we can write a light year as ct with t in years (1), and c in meters per year instead of per second. And let’s figure the ship is going to travel at .8c. The ship will therefore take ten years to get there, as seen from earth. It will then immediately turn around and come back at the same speed. Total time, as seen from earth, 20 years.

Billy is going on the expedition. Bob is staying home.

Bob analyzes the trip. He sees the ship traveling 8 light years at .8c and concludes the one way trip will take ten years. Two ways, 20 years.

Let’s look at Billy’s perspective. Calculating γ at 1 2/3s, he can divide by that (since he’s going to be the one on the train, by the math) and see that the distance to Sirius will contract by 40 percent (he will multiply it by .6). So once he’s on that ship, traveling at .8c, Sirius will be 8 x .6 = 4.8 light years, and traveling at .8c, it will take him six years, one way, 12 years round trip.

From Billy’s point of view, however, it’s Bob that’s doing the traveling, so he should be younger than Billy when they meet again. In fact, while Billy ages 6 years, Bob should be aging 6 x .6 = 3.6 years, or in total, Billy ages 12 years, Bob ages 7.2 years. Not 20! So Billy is scratching his head, wondering how that “twenty years” of aging that Bob will do, possibly can be.

It’s resolved this way. Imagine a clock on earth, and a clock at Sirius, that were synchronized with each other. A person midway between them, at rest with respect to both of them, sees them both reading four years ago (he is four light years from each clock, so their signals are delayed by four years when they reach him).

While Billy is traveling to Sirius, it’s going to look like two clocks moving past him at .8c, separated by 8 light years. It will look like the one at Sirius is chasing the one at earth. Go back to our formula:

t2 – t1 = L v /c2

L is 8 light years, v is equal to 0.8 c, so the Sirius clock looks to Billy (after correcting for all light-speed delay) as if it were 6.4 years ahead of the clock on Earth. (You have to convert everything back to meters and seconds and use 299,792,458 meters/second for that to work out. I just did it, that’s the right answer.)

So Billy arrives at Sirius, and stops. He’s now in the frame of reference of the Sirius clock, which, remember, was, while he was moving, 6.4 years fast. The clock did not just run backwards, so it still reads what it read before. But that means the clock back on earth must have advanced 6.4 years while Billy was slowing down to a stop, because in this reference frame, the two clocks are synchronized. So Billy thought Bob had aged 3.6 years during the trip; now he has to add 6.4 years to that to get…10 years. So Bob ages ten years during half of the trip.

It might also help to have the two twins send each other messages once a year (as they perceive it). Each twin can then monitor the aging of the other by simply counting signals. They don’t even need to correct for light speed delay, because they will receive all of the signals sent by the time they are re-united at the end of the round trip; some will be later than others but all will get there before the end of the trip. As it turns out, when they are moving further apart, each will get a signal from the other once every three years. When they are heading towards each other, the signals arrive every four months (a third of a year).

Looking at it from Traveler Billy’s point of view, during the six years he spends traveling to Sirius, he gets two signals. When he turns around and heads back to earth, he starts getting three signals a year for six years, total eighteen, grand total 20. The last signal from Bob reaches Billy in earth orbit just as the journey ends. Bob aged twenty years.

From Stay at Home Bob’s point of view, while Billy is travelling out for ten years, he gets three signals, the last arriving at year nine. But then he continues to get signals after ten years, from Billy as he was traveling outwards, because the last signal was sent from Sirius, eight light years away, ten years after the trip started. So Bob gets six signals over the course of eighteen years. Then the signals from Bob as he’s coming back arrive, 3 per year, for two years, for a total of six more signals, including the last one from earth orbit that arrives just as Bob arrives. total, twelve signals; Bob aged 12 years.

There are aspects of this I could not cover, including the Doppler shift, which is how one gets the 3 per year, one every three year numbers I just used.

I also didn’t have time to explain how E = mc2 comes from all of this (Einstein’s fourth paper, the big kaboom!!! both literally and figuratively).

But I am running out of time and I have to produce the diagram for simultaneity still (no good one to be had online). But it’s now done and it’s 12:26. Just need to fix the precious metal prices!

Obligatory PSAs and Reminders

China is Lower than Whale Shit

Remember Hong Kong!!!

Whoever ends up in the cell next to his, tell him I said “Hi.”

中国是个混蛋 !!!
Zhōngguò shì gè hùndàn !!!
China is asshoe !!!

China is in the White House

Since Wednesday, January 20 at Noon EST, the bought-and-paid for His Fraudulency Joseph Biden has been in the White House. It’s as good as having China in the Oval Office.

Joe Biden is Asshoe

China is in the White House, because Joe Biden is in the White House, and Joe Biden is identically equal to China. China is Asshoe. Therefore, Joe Biden is Asshoe.

But of course the much more important thing to realize:

Joe Biden Didn’t Win

乔*拜登没赢 !!!
Qiáo Bài dēng méi yíng !!!
Joe Biden didn’t win !!!

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


2 — Photoelectric Effect

“But this paper begged to differ.”

What paper?


Even if you wanted to save the reveal, you could have done something to keep all the dangling “paper” more organized. As in, start with “Paper A”, then — when you change papers — explicitly change to “Paper B”. I kept scratching my head at which “paper” went with what — and I’m not unfamiliar with the material.


You could also have made it more clear that the papers were answering questions of 1895, but were published in 1905.


You’re really critiquing the format/presentation of his Opening?

It’s not a dissertation… it’s an Open for a forum, long by comparison to other Opens and it wasn’t finished by “his standards”



If you look back to the way Steve and I used to tag-team the elements on Utree, this is a common pattern when the post is pretty darned good and the information presented is relevant and clear.

Besides, these are being collected on the sidebar for posterior. He already said it wasn’t finished by “his standards”, and I’m adding my 2 cents for when he reopens it to make it sidebar ready.

It’s usually a good idea, if you think person A is being slighted by person B, to let person A make the call. There is usually history.


This isn’t the U-Tree… and one is responsible for one says, esp. without explanation. I spoke to the ‘facts’ …………….


My brain is rapidly becoming mush Steve… A year ago I could have intelligently commented on the content… not today. I read enough to know that I couldn’t process. Most of my comments are word salad… even to me 😉 So, last night I decided I will slowly cease to even drop bits of news. Grandson says I’m still in first stages of Alz, but that I’m overloading the brain with the amount of reading I’m doing… most of which may be disinformation anyway, and that I should approach my problem in a ‘scientific’ manner. That is, give it a rest! So, I shouldn’t even lurk for a week or so… just do Sudoku 😉 I’m rambling… hope you are well.


I think I picked up that much 😉 that is, no claim of an error in the science… and your comment on my ability to evaluate is correct.

I’m sure stress heightens my symptoms… and like most I’m becoming very stressed with what I am seeing happening to our Country. Of course I can’t close my eyes to it, but I can even see Grandson’s wisdom that I have to step away from it for a while… I’m thankful for my garden 😉
You continue bringing what you do… it’s very good.

I am observing a huge number of bitcoins emerge… and strangely enough more than a few of the anons are writing more about them than anything political 😉 I wonder what your opinion is about all this currency stuff… I have not even tried to get a handle on it. Perhaps you have even written something on the topic and I have missed it? Hope Darwin is well (hope I remembered his name correctly 😉 )


Thanks… feed Darwin 😉


You read him well !

Cuppa Covfefe

Shocking. Positively shocking…
(couldn’t resist it)…

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Ah – the quiet sound of people READING. 🤓


I think there are 4 of us here, not counting Wolf, who probably already read your post.


But that’s pretty typical this time of night. I came on one night during our nasty ice storm after one of my trees fell, and only Coothie was here.


I’m proud to say I made it through ! Can’t claim to actually ‘get it’ but we are very lucky to have people who do and more importantly a guy who’s willing to put the enormous effort in to explain it. Thank you.
The concept I do understand through the post…the computation beyond my grasp!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Actually, no early reading this time! I just finished.

I was not asked to read it early, although I did check for whether it looked “done” after midnight!!! 😃

I am fairly familiar with much of what Steve is talking about, but a lot of it was from decades ago, so it reads very fresh now! Also, Steve’s perspective is totally different from mine – more astronomy – more EE. But I can remember the first time I read a lot of this stuff, trying to “get” it deeply, and it was very rewarding and fun.

I actually got some really good insights from Steve’s explanation. For example, the idea that accelerations break the “twin paradoxes” of special relativity is a well-known idea, and frankly where most expositions leave things. There are not, however, many (or almost any, in my experience) intuitive explanations which show the breaking of the “false paradox symmetry”, as what Steve gave us here. Indeed, so may explanations spend so much time trying to show the symmetry of reference frames, they just go to “ICBS” (“it can be shown”) on the twin paradox, followed by the “ball on a rubber sheet” explanation of general relativity, and “THE END”.

In contrast, from Steve’s explanation, I can really see that accelerations create a kind of “privilege of distance shortening in the frame of the accelerated” which is in some ways very analogous to the meme of hyperspace. The time privilege of the accelerated then falls right out of this. And it gets even better when you throw that idea onto the continuously accelerated things which are such a great demo of this (trying to not be a spoiler here).

This very intuitive symmetry-breaker then hooks into the fairly mystical and mathematical view that time and distance are much more “Reece’s Pieces” or even “McFlurry” than 3+1. For me, that sort of mathy mysticism is always more of a comforter than an annoyance. It’s like “Oh, goody! More beautiful mysteries for later!” But for right now, I feel intuitively enlightened on an area that has never felt quite as sensible before.

There were some other points that I really enjoyed, too – I hope to mention those later!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Just checked – my teachers never used that one! 😉

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Sounds like a good approach! Our first text, “Trendy Physics”, was quickly replaced by “Ancient Physics” when it ran into problems! 😉

Cuppa Covfefe

I’ll bet they made a great pear…

(And you can quote me on that 🙂 )….

Last edited 2 years ago by Cuppa Covfefe
Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

One of the best and most intuitive explanations of tensor math that I ever saw was just some random guy on the internet, on an ART forum, explaining it to artsies. I should have saved it. It was very impressive!

Deplorable Patriot

Or scrolling.


𝐉𝐨𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐧.

Not even close.


 😝  😄 


“How did the solar system form? Any answer to this must account for how the planets, only a tiny fraction of the mass of the solar system, ended up with the vast majority of the angular momentum in the system.”


“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Genesis 1:1-3, KJV)


“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” (Psalm 33:6, KJV)


“He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.” (Psalm 147:4, KJV)


“Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” (Isaiah 48:13, KJV)


“Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. [4]
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” (Job 38:3-4, KJV)


“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1:1-5, KJV)


“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews 11:3, KJV)


“That’s not an *explanation*, it’s an assertion.”


You asked “How?”

I just gave the best answer there is so far.

And whatever else we may learn about it, I’m not concerned that God or His Word will ever be proven wrong.

But He is always up for the challenge, and always seeking challengers 👍 😁


The Anvil of God’s Word
“Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith’s door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“‘How many anvils have you had,’ said I,
‘To wear and batter all these hammers so?’
‘Just one,’ said he, and then with twinkling eye,
‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’

“And so, I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone.”

— attributed to John Clifford

Last edited 2 years ago by scott467

There was an exhibit I attended which was just about the cranes/rigging/bracing/scaffolding involved in such major projects. I found it fascinating.


No, the exhibit was about the time of Brunelleschi. And the man-powered machines used to do things. It featured reconstructions and analyses coming from manuscripts. It was very cool!


The amazing thing is that not one-person in a thousand was prepared to learn how to do this sort of thing, and if they didn’t find an apprentice, a technique might “go dark” until someone studied the work and the builder’s notes and figured it out. And if that person didn’t find an apprentice, it could “go dark” again. It’s possible that Il Duomo could only have been started in a particular 50-year period, or in a period beginning 75 years later, or a different one ending 40 years previous.

It’d be like doing a modern building and going to a Civil Engineer and being told, “sorry, we’re not doing that at present — come back in a decade and check again.”


And, BTW, it took until the 80’s or so where they adequately understood the Pantheon to where they could (but never did) reproduce it. They could do it in pre-stressed concrete with rebar, but not as weight-loaded pure concrete.


Not to mention Amiens (highest ceiling on a completed Gothic Cathedral), or Salisbury Cathedral (tallest standing spire in England — Lincoln may have been taller, but….).

These people were inspired to create enduring monuments according to their times. Now they are long gone, but their monuments remain.


“and it’s not even an answer to “how,” it’s an answer to “who?””


It was “how”, the ‘how’ was that He spoke the world (and the universe) into existence.

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” (Genesis 1:3, KJV).

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” (Psalm 33:6, KJV, boldface emphasis mine)

Think about it just as it says, and then consider how it could happen.

In other words, suspend your disbelief long enough to consider the proposition, such that if it was true, how could it conceivably happen, allowing for the limits of human understanding.

For example, think of the ability to ‘speak’ a language of mathematics which cause things to come into existence, the power to create matter out of nothing.

When all the ‘creation’ explanations of Men are exhausted, no matter how far they get, there is still the problem of what started it, how did it begin, what caused whatever earliest explanation Men can come up with.

‘The Big Bang’ theory is an easy example to use.

Assuming the ‘Big Bang’ theory was true, what caused the ‘Big Bang’?

Something had to cause it.

Something had to initiate it.

What was that thing?


Spot on, Scott. One is creation, one is process. There is no process without creation. The existence of what Steve describes reveals the creation of what Steve describes – which is initially described in Genesis as you rightly point out.

To fully understand the purpose of what Steve describes requires an acceptance and understanding of the Creator.


God is amused by those he endowed with some modicum of intelligence yet deny his existence.

Such people put their intellect above faith. They can only do this by denying the biblical explanations made re: the importance and necessity of faith in God, his designs, and his plans for us. And since they reject God’s reasoning and explanations (ie. they are unsatisfied with him/them), they reject God existence.

In short, they are fools. They may be well educated, informed, and knowledgable about worldly things, and they place the highest values upon this, but it will prove to be a fool’s gold.

God’s design is that we shall reap what we sow. Here, this means those who placed their intellect above faith and belief in God will wind up wishing they had been intellectually stunted mental midgets who did not and could not believe in their intelligence more than they believed in God. They will wind up saying…

”I thought I was smart, but it turns out I was an abject idiot all along. I was warned, and I refused to listen.”

And this will be their eternal epitaph and lament, for their consciousness will never die but it will be separated from God, who is life itself. They will hate themselves, but be unable to die and stop hating themselves. Eternal pain, with no chance for parole or an end to it all, with only themself to blame.

One would think that such smart people would have a healthy fear of God and this outcome, but they convince themselves that while they need fear things of this world, they need not fear rejecting God.

Thus are the wise made fools, and fools (who believe in God) made wise…

…which is precisely why we’ve been told by God that the greatest in Heaven are as mere children.

“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.“
Matthew 10:14

Barb Meier

Living on the mountain, I learned to listen better.

Barb Meier

And it is okay for there to be physical facts and truth found through faith in God’s word. Just like you told us about time changing depending on whether we were at the station or on the train. Is one or the other correct? Yes… 🙂


I once met an elderly man who identified himself as the Dean of the Science Faculty at Oxford University. As a Mathematician, Dr. Lennox Lewis told me that he had became a Christian as a result of studying Mathematic texts. Of all the unique reasons for a person to commit, by faith, their lives to Christ, I could think of no reason that would be less likely and more boring to me. However, as he explained his faith in science and especially Math as being a perfect science when properly understood and correctly applied, I began to recognize the emptiness that had created for him by trusting wholly in science as an end in itself without enabling him to use his discipline to understand its origin or purposes. He went on to explain that was the reason that one becomes a Christian by faith (priority) as an act of their will and not by conditions or circumstances or by a way of thinking or by lifestyle.

As someone who had left home and school at 16 years of age (I did complete highschool later) I always felt that acedemics, as a tool, was helpful and had something to offer, but I rarely saw an example of how it achieved anything unselfish. And that held no hope for me b/c I am selfish. During my life I have been accused of being “street smart” as I have learned principles that were true in any circumstance. That led me to the same practical or experiential destination as had Dr. Lennox Lewis, who then spent his life’s efforts trying to offer the best of his life to help others. His priority changed and his acedemic achievements became a tool that he used to point to a person as Author and Finisher of existence, including faith, rather than settling only for one aspect of it.

My respect for acedemic knowledge has not changed. And my admiration for an acedemic who uses their skills and knowledge to serve their fellow man has only been heightened despite any lack I may have in those areas. So even though this post is well above my paygrade, the truths unfolded serve to confirm to me that God is real and that He can be known personally, today, especially in the Science arena b/c He is the Alpha and the Omega and it is His hands that hold Science together. Thanks.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Your last two posts were in moderation due to a new email – just FYI.

Barb Meier

“Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. [4]
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” (Job 38:3-4, KJV)

I started to reply to you earlier and thank you for these Bible quotes. I had a couple of must-do errands. So now let me come back and start again… You and Steve both gave me gifts and made me think a lot. In response to the quote above, I thought: I was just a little jot inside the spirit of our God, until it was my turn to come to Earth and shine awhile. When my turn is done, because Jesus suffered and died for you and me, I’ll go back and be a little jot inside the spirit of God. I also thought that Steve is a miracle from God to be able to explain to me–a math challenged small town girl–so I could begin to comprehend how so many things work. To understand exactly how big and broad God’s miracles are. Light, for me, was just a rainbow or a bright cloud, or sharp sunshine in my eyes. Time is what moves faster and faster as I grow older but went so slowly when I was a little person. Steve explained it so clearly with Einstein’s train analogy.

While I was out on an errand, an unsettling awareness came to me. For a minute, I could imagine what it might look like through God’s eyes, seeing all of us individuals on Earth with all the same boy or girl biology, joys, failures, striving, learning, growing, crying, loving. Jostling about in this world while we are having our turn here on Earth. It was an overwhelming awareness of what humanity means and it’s too big for me to think on for too long. All of this earth and all of us are miracles. Walking, running, fighting, loving miracles.

Among those miracles is theqtree where I have found new friends to think through the challenges of our time. Thank you, everyone, for including me. Love, Barb


How utterly lovely.

Barb Meier

Thank you Grandma.


Very much so 🙂


Barb, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I don’t have the gentleness or grace of your words to write a proper reply, so I’ll just be quiet now 😁


“IT WAS ALL A LIE: Congress Was Evacuated on Jan. 6 Due to Pipe Bomb Threat — Not Because of Trump Supporters Walking Halls”

Was it a case of..

“energetic material that can become combustible when subjected to heat or friction.”



Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

What the fuck?


It was never an insurrection. It was never an armed mob. It was a pipe bomb found outside the RNC on the day of the protests.

Uh…found outside the RNC?

Ronna McDaniel should’ve been trumpeting this detail — to shoot down the Big Lie about it being an “insurrection”!


There are a lot of things RMcD shoulda been doin’ if she weren’t an entirely worthless scion of the Romney tree.



Ronna Must Go.


It’s easier to identify the ones you wish to work with again and let the rest collapse.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

This explains why FIB did the phony pipe bombs. They had to INSURE the evacuation. They could leave nothing to CHANCE. That’s how these PLOTS always work.


And that was why they did both parties. Oh good GRIEF.


Both parties would be to draw the sting of blaming antifa for initiating it.


If folks will remember, the media reported the pipe bombs. They just did it in the context of the insurrectionists probably doing it.

Those of us who understand just how deep the corruption is knew it was OUR government doing it to create the narrative. Can you not see the total orchestration of all of it? It’s as obvious as the noses on your faces. Each bureaucrat, Senator, Rep, etc. playing their parts in the movie.

PDT knew all of this and let it happen anyway. Why? IMO to expose more of the deep state for who they are so more people could see it. Now, over 100 million adults have openly recognized that people we thought could be trusted were actually traitors and seditionists. We KNOW. No longer is there a benefit of a doubt for any of them.

Our country has been and is led by filth. The revolution is occurring in the local elections and on a state level. It is a long term war to win back America’s heart. As Q said we have everything.

We are a republic. Be a republic as written. Refuse to do what is not law or Constitutional supported – not even SC edicts if they are not in accordance. Do it in masse on a state by state basis. Collectively it will have a huge impact because there are many more of us than there are of them. Isolate the traitors and seditionists and starve them out.


^^^ 99% agree.

Personally don’t believe Trump knew what was going to unfold, including the two faux bombs.

IC kept all of this from Trump AND his senior staff.

Absolutely “close hold” with “need to know”.

Information, correct or an absolute LIE was fed to faux news, Uniparty shit heads and THEN some in Trump’s inner circle. We did see some of trump’s inner circle bad mouth Trump on 7 January and days after.

P S Y O P.

A very well executed PSYOP against Trump, Patriots, America.


The pipe bomb was their insurance to derail the contested electing of Trump in case the deplorable stayed in their lane outside the building, January 6 was a perfect set up. The one in jail need to be those who thought of this sick plan.

Last edited 2 years ago by singingsoul1
Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Milley, Pelosi and Wray all approved it, IMO.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I think Mitch signed off on it. Probably reluctantly, but if Pelosi went to him and said Milley and Wray signed, Mitch would fold.



Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

GOPe went along with the whole scam.


went along…in on it…helped plan it…helped set it up months in advance….

Deplorable Patriot

Journalism is a rough draft of history, but this sounds like a total re-write.


comment image



Barb Meier

What a fun trip, Steve. Thank you!!! You made me wonder if this was why when my mom became elderly and little tasks became harder for her, she used to say: just keep moving.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

LOL! I hear you!


comment image


hmmm only a single mask, forshame.

bflyjesusgrl 🍊 😎NUCLEAR MAGA😎

Did I miss em?
Anybody else besides me wondering why we didn’t get new weekly numbers from VAERS?!?!??


Heh. Heh. Heh…..

Deplorables….our eyes are everywhere….

Good catch bfly!


Think they just found a different way to mask the way in. Seen something saying 1100 deaths now.

Last edited 2 years ago by para59r

Because the jabs are safe. They’re safe, I tell you. Lience!!! I mean Science!


Lience! Bwahahaha! Gonna use it!


I also know for a fact that Dr. Fauci is an adherent of Scienceology.

He’s high up in the org. 😎


Oh, boy. Really? That guy is a friggin’ nightmare!



Right. It was a play on words.


Lol! That’s what I read! Thanks for the heads up.

That’s funny.


I’ve been reading the Biden admins referenced reports, including the 22 pg. Surgeon General report.

They investigated over 50 million accounts leading them to over 450 accounts sharing the information of their deplorable “disinformation dozen”….

The report provides details of each of the 12 and examples of their posts, including links to VEARS data.

Pretty eye opening. It’s not only the the 12, but also their network of organizations recommended for deplatforming.

The reports reference and footnote the research of Joan Donovan (Belfer Center, and now Sharfstein Center) and others.

Dr. Joshua Sharfstein (benefactor of the Sharfstein Center?) of the Bloomberg endowed entity at Johns Hopkins, Sharfstein’s employer, has some interesting research beyond what is footnoted in Joan Donovan’s research that’s cited in these reports. This is cited by Donovan:


IIR, didn’t Joan Donovan have a link to the Hamilton 69 Dashboard of Russia, Russia, Russia internet manipulation warnings?

She links to the Belfer Center, as does ex NSA Richard Ledgett, Dimitry Alperovich, L. Jean Camp, Jake Sullivan, Fiona Hill and Strobe Talbott and others.

Richard Ledgett sits on the advisory council of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, the group behind the Hamilton 69 dashboard.


(Which is sponsored by the German Marshal Fund which leads to Mr. Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan)

Richard Ledgett leaked the Dutch operation that observed the first computer intrusion (there was more than one, iir) into the DNC, laying a foundation for blaming the exfiltration of data under Crowdstrike, on the Russians.

He leaked this at a conference at the Aspen Institute, moderated by John Carlin. Ellen Nakashima was in the audience. Dutch weren’t pleased.

Tangled web that seems to lead to the same place and players.

And the worries about the spread of vaccine “disinformation” go back to 2017, well before the start of this pandemic, according to Sharfstein’s research cited by Donovan for the Biden admin.

The reports cite “informed consent” as part of their criteria for identifying problematic information. Funny that this wasn’t a problem for Dr. Sharfstein in research that he published before the 2020 election.


…”If a vaccine used under EUA were to encounter safety problems, be ineffective, or be perceived as experimentation without consent, the FDA will be challenged about why the agency did not wait for more data before wide vaccine release, and trust in all vaccines may be seriously compromised. Therefore, if an EUA route is used for COVID-19 vaccines, it would be best for the FDA to require informed consent using a process that explains why the product is only available under an EUA, helping ensure all users understand the vaccine is not yet approved.”…
Dr.Sharfstein, July 6, 2020.

Concerned Virginian

Well, it appears that the EUA scheme was exactly that — a scheme. It also appears that the FDA decided beforehand that it was not going to require the proper testing for any of the CCP”Fauci-Mengele” virus “vaccines, because the EUA would do the trick of starting the “vaccinations” earlier. It also appears that the FDA was withholding pertinent information for the consumer (as well as for medical professionals) with those blank “Drug Facts” inserts with the “vaccine” packages for so many months.
And do not forget that Dr. Anthony “Fauci-Mengele” knew all was going on behind the scenes with the incomplete / rushed “clinical trials”, the incomplete data collecting, and the actual makeup of the “vaccines” — and never informed REALPOTUS 45 Donald Trump about it.
It’s no surprise that the VAERS website is now locked against general public view.
It’s no surprise that the AMA is mixed up in this mess up to their eyeballs.
It may well be, soon, that one will need to use the same amount of caution in speaking with their personal doctor, as they would use in speaking to an LE officer or an FBI agent.

Last edited 2 years ago by RDS

Because the Biden admin and big tech claim that it’s being taken out of context and misinterpreted by the deplorable “disinformation dozen”?


IE. Biden admin is in the process of deplatforming VEARS?


Windows print spooler flaws are being found so rapidly that Microsoft advises users to just pull its plug.


I suppose there’s probably some way to use cups.


Just as a heads-up on cups…..its active development dwindled down to a one-man show from a guy who was employed by Apple. He got bored, and recently requested (and was granted) reassignment. It’s pretty evolved, and pretty tight, but it essentially has no maintainer at present, so it will inevitably start to decay until it finds a new home or is supplanted.


Wolfie…and any others who may be interested…a friend of mine who does research puts high stock on this man’s work.
Thought this might interest you.


Last edited 2 years ago by Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy
Sylvia Avery

Alex Berenson has been really on top of this. He’s done a good job of sorting through the information. 👍👍👍


Sylvia…this is the first stack she has sent me, and I really like his approach…very orderly.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I just fixed that link – typo was blocking it.

Very good link. I think Alex Berenson is great. He has tipped me off to so much!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

This is an excellent link, and supports a theory I have on how this was a PLANNED FAILURE to create a paradigm of continuous forced vaccinations as a PLATFORM for socialist control and continuous genetic experimentation and modification of humanity.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Contraception and population control fit right in there, too.


Excellent read. Should be shared far and wide.


comment image

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

OMG, that is one of the most beautiful cartoons EVER.


Yep…because it perfectly captures the mental projection and the issue behind it

Last edited 2 years ago by ForGodandCountry

Next….3D print it.


comment image

Mark Finchem


Dem AZ SoS Hobbs in full blown Chernobyl meltdown over AZ Senate’s move to conduct a re-canvass of suspicious ballot submissions, like 72K mail in ballots that were never mailed out?  💥  They don’t want you to know what happened do they?


The Dems stuffed the ballot box with 72K ballots that were never even mailed out.
No wonder they are doing everything they can to try to stop this audit.

Mark Finchem [R] is with the AZ legislature.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Katie Hobbs is going to prison! HOORAY!!!


Amazing that she hasn’t deleted these….



Kati Hobbs is a buffoon. She is saying all of us are neo nazi? What an insult and how ignorant.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Democrats would rather be “part of the herd” than correct. Even when they know it’s wrong.


Being part of the heard is a syndrome of people who reject God.
I am speaking for myself never was a fallow heard person God is all I need to fallow.
Does not mean I do not like community 🙂


Is Katie Hobbs a full-blown Communist, or only half-blown?


True, I hadn’t considered that.

I was meaning that whether full-blown or half-blown, she’s a Commie.

The only question is a matter of degree. 👍


 😬  😕 
comment image

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Declaring war on the globalists might actually be a very good idea.


Yep…since they’ve already declared war on us little people.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

AH – I like that logic!


The globalists are the real neo nazis.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

YUP! The “Sideshow Bobs” in old Hitler regalia make a good distraction, though!


They are deflecting specially that the globalists began their agenda in Europe. Just look who the leaders are ? Always the same neo nazis


“Declaring war on the globalists might actually be a very good idea.”


If only we had a military to do it.

But between transgender awareness soirees, classes on proper kneeling technique, fashion retreats and male breast-feeding symposiums, it’s hard to fit any more obligations onto the duty roster.



It’s wasted on the rabid vax-pushers. 😄 

[video src="https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/079/479/606/original/c42a59582f2f24f9.mp4" /]

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy



can I get a link for this?


It does, and thank you!


This is the best I’ve ever seen. Truly.


Thanks for the lessons, Steve.

Real Science begats more real Science. I hope and pray that honest men seeking truth are able to take it back from the ideologues.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy



comment image

comment image


The Randos Have My Vote….

comment image


comment image

Deplorable Patriot

The fear mongers won’t be happy until the “variants” menu reads like the chalkboards at Starbucks.



“Calabro: I don’t know what critical race theory. I don’t know that there’s a standardized definition of critical race theory. And, I can tell you that we don’t teach critical race theory in our schools. What I can say is that there has been a shift in curriculum and curriculum products, that was made by people other than teachers. It was made at a much higher level, and teachers have complained across the district about the change, and the lack of rigor that these products have brought to our district.”

Who is imposing CRT in the schools? Give us the names of the people at the “much higher level” who are doing it.

Deplorable Patriot

It’s the textbook writers, as I understand it. Years ago some information came out about that, and sting videos surfaced.

It has to do with selling new products. Follow the money and I’m sure it can be found.


I think it’s directives from federal bureaucrats…who is the sec of Ed now?

Deplorable Patriot

Cuppa is correct, I think. It’s being directed from the Gates Foundation.


Yes, but I’m trying to say that the content was ordered from PEOPLE above. Not just content. Somebody had to order the content be included.

Cuppa Covfefe

Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and, now appearing in local theatres, Agenda 2050 (with a special edition Agenda 2060(!) for Africa, complete with refauxgees by the BILLION!)..

Remember the other Robert Muller, the long-time Satanist education “minister” at the UN… They’re ultimately behind the worldwide dumbing-down and propaganda dissemination…

“Brave New Schools” from Birgit Kjos ( http://www.crossroad.to ), “The Deliberate Dumbing Done of America” from Charlotte Iserbyt ( http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/ddd ), and the works of Robin Eubanks at http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com are valuable and interesting resources (serfscollar is MUCH more technical than the other two, and drills down deep into the “ed biz”)…

Well worth the time to read, even if you’re left wanting to yell out of frustration afterwards…

Last edited 2 years ago by Cuppa Covfefe
Cuppa Covfefe

Charlotte Iserbyt wrote “The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America”, and has expanded it, and also has a website with tons of information about globalist control of our schools and curricula.

There’s an eight DVD set which according to the following post on her site, also is on her YouTube channel. Sounds interesting, especially considerign the authors she lists:


Exposing the Global Road to Ruin Through Education is an 8-DVD set of presentations given by various long-time education activists. It also includes written submissions from Charlotte Iserbyt, Samuel Blumenfeld, Dennis Cuddy, G. Edward Griffin, Rosa Koire, Anita Hoge, Jeannie Georges, and more, and is the result of two, 2-day conferences, held in Maine and Georgia, in August 2012 and August 2013. Fifteen of the nation’s most respected education and political researchers, writers, and speakers, including public school teachers – some in the trenches since 1965 – were videotaped. A special roundtable discussion involving researcher/activists Karen Bracken and Kelleigh Nelson, Tennessee, and Diane Kepus, Karen Schoen, and Debbie Gunnoe, Florida, provides up-to-date information related to Common Core, tax-funded school choice and charter schools with their unelected boards. Written submissions are included from the speakers, as well as from those who could not attend the conference. One is offered a banquet of written works, including rich history, from great patriots and recognized writers active from 1960-2000; i.e., Jacqueline and Malcolm Lawrence, Joan Masters, Elizabeth Trotto, Peggy Cuddy, and from equally talented individuals no longer with us: the late Maureen Heaton, Don Bell, Jo Hindman, Bettye Lewis, Sam Blumemfeld, and Ruth Feld. This impeccable research is your toolkit: ammunition to fight and win the government/corporate/tax-exempt foundation-funded war against our children and grandchildren, and against our free constitutional republic, very aptly illustrated by Joel Pett, Pultizer Prize-winning cartoonist in his 1983 Phi Delta Kappan cartoon.

YouTube Videos: Start with the Preview Video where Charlotte Iserbyt introduces the speakers, and find the 8 others on Charlotte’s YouTube channel.

DISC 1 – The Devil’s Seven-Prong Fork

Deplorable Patriot

That sounds most interesting.

Have you read Harold Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind? I was thinking about rereading it.

Cuppa Covfefe

I’ve read some of his articles but I don’t have the book. There’s a website, too: https://theclosingoftheamericanmind.com

He has some interesting thoughts on music (from the link):

  • Classical music is essentially dead. It slowly turned from being the object of genuine appreciation to a tool for demonstrating sophistication before it was emphatically displaced by rock music. p. 69-70


  • The Left has largely given rock music a free ride, seeing it as “coming from beneath the bourgeoisie’s layers of cultural repression.” But the success of music (along with higher education) is better understood by its role in fulfilling “the bourgeois’ need to feel that he is not bourgeois, to have undangerous experiments with the unlimited.” p. 77-78
  • Mick Jagger was the icon of the rock music movement, and is a kind of hero for young people—much like Napoleon for the French of the 19th century. The promise of rock music was a rediscovery of the state of nature, free from the repressions of civilization; but with those repressions removed, all we have left is “show business glitz. Mick Jagger tarting it up on stage is all that we brought back from the voyage to the underworld.” p. 78-79
  • My concern is not a moral one, it is related to music’s effect on education. “I believe it ruins the imagination of young people and makes it very difficult for them to have a passionate relationship to the art and thought that are the substance of liberal education. The first sensuous experiences are decisive in determining the taste for the whole of life…. Rock music encourages passions and provides models that have no relation to any life that young people who go to universities can possibly lead…. [And] without the cooperation of the sentiments, anything other than technical education is a deal letter.” p. 79

His ideas on rock music, the modern music “industry” and its effect on youth are echoed in many of the articles and anaylses at http://www.vigilantcitizen.com on music and entertainment and pop… as well as MK…

I have to wonder, why is NOBODY LISTENING TO THESE PEOPLE???

Our culture has been going to hell in a handbasket filled with Kommie literature for generations, and no one has raised a red white ,erm, blue flag to say anything’s wrong.

My (ridgerunner 🙂 ) grandmother and her family were mostly educators and pastors, and she taught from (among other things) the OLD McGuffey Readers… They’ve all probably been destroyed or burned via Øbøzø’s great book purge… sigh…

Deplorable Patriot

I have to agree with him on music to an extent. Classical is all but dismissed in pursuit of the trash.

Deplorable Patriot

Trust me, I’ve sung enough John Adams to want to chuck the straight to orchestra compositions these days.

Movie music, OTOH, is pretty decent. Unfortunately, there are a limited number of composers in the business.

Deplorable Patriot

At this point, it all runs together. But I don’t think so. There’s still an appetite for known compositions of previous time periods. Orff and Brittan are about the most modern composers who will actually manage to fill a hall.

Deplorable Patriot

Benjamin Brittan? I was first introduced to him in grade school. Choral program that the Washington Archdiocese did.

Cuppa Covfefe

Ahhh. Nicht so Schoenberg…

Have a listen to Charles Ives’s setting of Psalm 24.

Even gives profi ensembles fits…

Cuppa Covfefe

Kinda funny. I knew him as a composer and conductor and “freund” of a good friend of mine back in the 70s. Didn’t like his music, but he’s an OK guy…

(I listen, and listen, and listen, and keep waiting for the pitches to change. Sort of a minimalist techno, like my printers or our dishwasher)… Hmmm. Shaker dishes…

Cuppa Covfefe

Yep. He’s not as boring as his music…


We used McGuffey in our homeschool. They are still around.

Cuppa Covfefe

The new ones (post 1930?) are different. There’s a website (or was) that discusses the differences and changes… Dewey and Mann were twiddling things back then…..


Ah. Well I had original facsimiles.

Cuppa Covfefe

A lot of textbooks companies are tied in with Pearson, who are tied in with…

wait for it…

the Gates foundation.

I stumbled across this when doing the Micro$haft training materials connected with MSDN and all the various certs. Probably the remnants of M$’s Encarta (anyone remember that?) are in there too…

Gates, like Satan Sauros, has his cloven hooves everywhere…

Deplorable Patriot



Yes, Pearson teaches absolut horse poop on every page of their textbooks. Doesn’t matter which discipline.

Culinary arts textbooks read like an ode to BLM, climate change, social justice and any other drivel you can think of.

If they could’ve they would have given recipes with that dookie in it.


Very interesting subject for additional research, imo.

I looked at this briefly long ago related to how city planning agendas are seeded into the (elementary/middle school) curriculum. I forget the name of the company involved, but it may have linked to standardized testing, iir.


…You know, those “systemically racist” testing standards that capture educational data from kindergarten thru professional licensing…

Last edited 2 years ago by holly
Cuppa Covfefe

“Mmmmmh. Smells like Old Spice… or was that Coke”…

Last edited 2 years ago by Cuppa Covfefe

Grated cheese.

Cuppa Covfefe

“Who Cut The Cheese”… 🙂


DOJ LIED. Said they didn’t want to influence an election.

^^^ DOJ’s intentional lack of ACTION, INFLUENCED AN ELECTION.

DOJ intentionally IGNORED crimes – pedo, crugs, guns, bribes…

Joe and Where’s Hunter walk. Just as hildabeast, walked.


As did Nassar’s enablers above the level of university president.

Cuppa Covfefe

Any relation to Gamal Abdel Nasser ???


Deplorable Patriot

That’s the end of salon manicures for me.

Drat. I could use one.



This is just me, but Burke is affected with accedia.

Also, I think Bergoglio is not long for this world and this is his parting shot.

Deplorable Patriot

Accedia, no.

But Burke is full of himself. He was archbishop here for four and a half years, and the stories….


I can imagine. However, he is effeminate and has no will beyond whining, to oppose Bergoglio.

I think he’s a smells and bells fella.

Deplorable Patriot

He likes the attention he gets from conservatives, though. Smells, and bells…and when he used to walk into the Cathedral Basilica for official ceremonies, timpani, trumpets and Bruckner’s Ecce Saccerdos.

Actually, he got smacked down by Pope Benedict XVI pretty hard when he was shipped out of the USA in 2008. There was stuff going on behind the scenes.

Cuppa Covfefe

I imagine people get really incensed over that…
(especially Pope-A-Dope Francis)…

bflyjesusgrl 🍊 😎NUCLEAR MAGA😎

comment image


Oughta be corrected to read:

Jan 6 Patriots 89.1%.

Yea, even that number is to low.


A much better description!

bflyjesusgrl 🍊 😎NUCLEAR MAGA😎

comment image


comment image

Deplorable Patriot

Someone asked about the new VAERS numbers.


The New VAERS Numbers Are Out Today:

463,456 Adverse Events
30,781 Hospitalizations
9,274 Disabled
3,906 Heart Attacks
2,466 Myocarditis Reactions
1,073 Miscarriages
10,991 Deaths

100% safe and effective.


Cuppa Covfefe

Times were, TPTB would start a war in order to cut the population, effect politcal or other change, and make tons of money.

Looking at everyone’s favorite (not) death benchmark, and factoring the 10% reporting rate of VAERS, making the death toll close to 110K from the unVaxxes, we’re already at double the Vietnam War deaths (if one believes the Wackypedia numbers, yeah, I know).

Seems they’ve found a “cleaner” and probably MUCH more profitable way to exterminate us, and the blame comes back to us, the “Great Unvaxxed”…..

“Your money or your life” asks the deep state, then,
“Oh, wait: We’ll take BOTH”…..


These are the July 9th numbers according to the link. Are the reports always a week behind, I don’t know?

Last edited 2 years ago by Gingersmom2009
Deplorable Patriot

Not sure, but this was advertised as the latest set of numbers.



Cuppa Covfefe

Yep. I’d be suspicious of numbers that came out the same day or a day or two later. WIth the DEMONRATS and the climastrologists, they probably have their numbers a couple of days (if not weeks) earlier…


yes,,,they are always one week behind…..


ty 👍🏻


Pull on the researchers cited in this report and the 22pg. Surgeon General report backing up Bidens policies. See the circular research and reporting and where it leads.

Deplorable Patriot


^^^ It’s as if Nanzi framed her smear, after this Communist directive in 1943.


This is exactly what the left did and it was extremely effective to the point that everybody thinks the ‘Nazis/Fascists’ and Socialists/Communist’s are at both are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, when in fact all are on the same side.

They all are Communists/Socialist/Fascists/Nazis, interchangeably.

That is why the China CCP easily can go from Communism to ‘Socialism with a Chinese Charakter’, i.e. Chinese Nazism.


I think the man in the video that Dan Scavino featured looks to be Dan Smoot. If so, he was an anti-communist fighter, extraordinaire. He did the weekly Dan Smoot Report during the 1950s/60s. He resigned from the FBI to do his anti-communist outreach.


I believe it’s G Edward Griffin.


Cuppa Covfefe

He’s in Charlotte Iserbyt’s DVD/YouTube series that I noted above…