Sunday, October 27, 2013

Lewandowsky Invariance

At the end of the 19th century physics had a significant problem reconciling Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism (E&M).  Roughly, very roughly put, this boiled down to the invariance of physics across frames moving uniformly with respect to each other.  One needs to calculate the time and position of a body, or an electromagnetic wave in one frame compared to that in another moving uniformly with respect to the first.

In human speak this is figuring out how the same process appears when one is moving on a train as opposed to when one is standing the ground watching the train go by.  Of course, both the train and the Earth are moving, and the train could be a really fast space ship, but we really do not need to go there.

The Newtonian solution is a Galilean transform, that time is the same everywhere and that the difference in position changes as the product of time and velocity, e.g. r(t)' - r(t) = - vt, where t is time, v the relative velocity between the frames and r(t)' and r(t) the positions in the two frames at any time t.  Within this picture, the Newtonian physics remains the same for both the observer on the ground and the one on the train.

For the physics described by Maxwell's equations this does not work.  One needs a more complex looking set of equations called Lorentz transforms.  These allow calculation of such things as the wavelength and energy of an electromagnetic wave, e.g. light, radio waves, in one frame given the time and position in another.

With this key idea, and none of the mathematics, we can appreciate Einstein's contribution.  Physics  should be independent of the rock we are standing on when we measure it.   One way out was intensively explored by Michelson and Morley and others (here and here).   They showed that the laws of E&M did not change when the frame of observation changed.  Therefore, Einstein concluded that the Galilean frame transform was the one that had to be modified.  This leads to a set of Lorentz invariant transforms for particle motion, and prediction of such things as time dilation, the energy equivalence of mass, E = mc2, and more, each having been observed and shown to obey the predictions of what is called the Special Theory of Relativity.

The Theory of Relativity became established science within twenty years.  Some recognized its importance and correctness quickly, for example, Max Planck.  On the other hand, the theory remains distasteful to many, mostly not scientists.  Exploration of that distaste is instructive and there is no better place to start than Einstein's take

This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”
and
Anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful,
There is an historical and philosophical literature about this.  The role of Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's book, Merchants of Doubt, belongs to Milena Wazeck's  Einsteins Gegner:  Die Oeffentliche Kontroverse um die Relativitaetstheorie in de 1920er Jahren (Einsteins opponents:  The public controversy about the theory of relativity in the decade of the 1920s).  Eli has not yet read that book (on order from Amazon) which is untranslated from the German, but there is a review by, Jeron von Dorgens On Enstein's Opponents and Other Crackpots that sets the stage nicely.

One of the first things that jumps out is how the witches of denial cooked relativity and climate change in the same kettle.  Wazeck observes that the physicists who opposed Einstein, and it did get personal, were those who were fearful of being sidelined by the shift of the field to a more mathematical approach.  In the same way, the professional opposition to climate change science was rooted in the observational climatologists seeing a threat to their work from the climate modeling community, the Tim Balls, the William Grays, the Pat Michaels,  of the world, and the regional climatologists, the Roger Pielke Sr.'s.

And, of course, there were the citizen scientists, as Roy Spencer would put it, or in Wazeck's description
Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science.
Is there any better description of Chris Monckton than this of Arthur Patschke
Non-academic researchers like Patschke announced public lectures, submitted essays, and tried to establish contact with Einstein and other leading scholars in order to warn them—as well-intentioned colleagues—of the falsehood of the theory of relativity and to convince them of the veracity of their own scientific worldviews. Patschke and others like him were often simply ignored; in other instances, it was patiently explained how their criticisms of the theory of relativity had completely missed the mark. But because their observations were anchored in specific worldviews, Patschke and his associates were immune to this type of criticism.
well, except for the well intentioned part, but that too soon vanished, and the roots of this are explored by Waneck
The controversy surrounding the theory of relativity was exceptionally heated. In many pamphlets one finds what might be described as a martial rhetoric of damnation; his opponents also staged acts of protest that sought to inflame public opinion against Einstein’s work. A complex process of marginalization and protest helps to account for the heated responses to Einstein’s theory.
Of course, for scientific denialism to gain traction there have to be political and philosophical motivations.  Politically, while anti-Semitism played a major role, it must not be forgotten that Einstein's outspoken and well known pacifism did not play well on the right of post WWI Germany's political spectrum, where defeat and disgrace was blamed on internal enemies (of course, including Jews, liberals, social democrats and communists).  Moreover, the theory of relativity in removing time from its immutable privileged place stirred fierce resentment especially among those who regarded it as a world view rather than a scientific theory. Perhaps it would have been better to call Einstein's work the Theory of Consistent Physics

Still one cannot separate the gathering storm which lead to Hitler and the political context in which the Theory of Relativity was demonized.  Von Dorgen writes in his short book review (go read it and say to yourself every paragraph, hey Eli recognizes that, he read it yesterday at WUWT, at Curry's, etc)
Conspiracy theories tend to do well in uncertain times: they create order in chaos. Hence, they thrived in post-World War I Germany.  Just as there is no real point in debating conspiracy theorists, there was no point in explaining relativity to anti-relativists, Wazeck astutely observes. Their strong opposition was not due to a lack of understanding, but rather the reaction to a perceived threat. Furthermore, anti-relativists were convinced of their own ideas, and were really only interested in pushing through their own theories; any explanation of relativity would not likely have changed their minds. Initially, relativists, and in particular Einstein himself, were willing to engage in correspondence or debate with their critics. By the early 1920’s, however, they concluded that sufficient common ground was lacking, and likely chose not to further waste any valuable time.
and, where have we seen this
Nevertheless, anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play—and some anti-relativists were convinced that the co-conspirators were Jewish. Jews were held to dominate both the newspaper business and the new discipline of theoretical physics; they could thus easily advertize one of their own (Einstein) and his fallacious work (relativity). Gehrcke, for instance, kept emphasizing that the successes of relativity could only be explained by a state of “mass hypnosis”, brought about by excessive and one-sided reporting.

Such a qualification resonated with familiar anti-Semitic reasonings (it was a known anti-Semite strategy to claim Jewish hyping), and was well received in right-wing media. Yet, Wazeck denies any overt anti-Semitic motivations on Gehrcke’s part; in her perspective, a crucial distinction seems to be that he did not necessarily primarily intend to promote the rightist cause, as Weyland appeared to have attempted.
Oh yes, over at Dr. Roy's place this morning
I would guess today’s research funding lopsidedness is currently running at least 100 to 1, humans versus nature. Is that really how the public would like their tax dollars spent?
Eli is not the first to have spotted the analogy or even von Dorgen's essay.  Brenden DeMille had a piece in 2010 at deSmog

The entire analogy is filled with irony (Eli only does snark).  For example, the equivalents of the NIPCC was the "Academy of Nations" bringing together Einstein's opponents organized by Ernst Gehrcke in Germany and Arvid Reutherdahl, engineer and dean at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.  Alert bunnies may recognize that John Abraham, one of the most successful defenders of climate science, is, at the University, nee College, of St Thomas, and that the administration of the University acted admirably when Chris Monckton bared fangs and attacked John.

In conclusion, one must acknowledge that science denial is the same from every point of observation both in time and in space.  Eli formulates this as Lewandowsky's Denial Invariance Transform.

Anonymous said...

Another example for the bunnies to read:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/essen/essen.html

(particularly the comment at the end).

George Montgomery said...

Arfur Patschke = Qwistopher of Bwenchly. You, wascally wabbit!
Ipsa historia repetit!

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

"History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes."--Mark Twain

metzomagic said...

Cueing Barry woods and Geoff Chambers in 3... 2... 1...

John Mashey said...

The attack on relativity continues and are sometimes quite conjoined with attacks on climate science. See PDF @ Weird Anti-Science - Donna Bethell, SEPP, and Sandia National Laboratories.

Donna was/is a board member of Fred Singer's SEPP, her husband Tom writes a lot, and they are well-connected with interesting folks (p.4), such as supporting Art Robinson.

See Appendix A.2, pp.16-19 on Tom, including a few excerpts from a delicious series of posts in which he decries relativity and uses high-school algebra to argue with a professor who teaches graduate relativity courses and tells Tom it really is hard to get very far without tensors. But Bethell wrote a 2009 book on this, "Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary?" so he must be right, depsite lakc of any obvious technical background.

However, of late, he has been working the climate anti-science turf, including (excerpted from p.16):
02/17/10 A Disgrace to Science, American Spectator

'Today, many scientists and opinion leaders think that if an elite consensus in favor of certain "policies" can be generated, the underlying science must be right. The corrupt system of "peer review" will reliably exclude dissenters, and if the naysayers continue making themselves heard they will be called denialists, tools of right-wing talk radio, etc. This is where climate science has been heading. It is also where other major fields of science stand today—at the mercy of a contrived consensus.

"Climate change" has attracted major attention not because its methods of subversion are much different from now-standard practice, but because literally trillions of dollars are at stake. Those who promoted the bogus certainties of global warming not only sought to upend a whole way of life but came close to doing so. They have been aided by hundreds of well-known politicians, writers, reporters, and politicized scientists. Among politicians, Al Gore is only the best known. In the last category, James Hansen and Michael Mann are among the major U.S. culprits. …

Recently, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University has been the leading promoter of bogus global temperature claims. He manufactured the misleading "hockey stick" temperature graph that eliminated the Medieval Warm Period by cherry-picking tree-ring data. He accuses dissenters of being funded by oil companies and has garnered \$6 million in government grants for Penn State. As a climate dissenter rather than a distorter, he would have been vilified, not remunerated. He‘s an enemy of science. ...

My friend Fred Singer, who was at Copenhagen and has been a leading climate dissident, thinks that Climategate may completely undermine popular trust in science. But right now, maybe that is what is needed.'

EliRabett said...

More, as they say, is coming.

Brian said...

Tom Bethell wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" and you can guess as to its value.

My favorite denialist is Fred Hutchison who wrote at Renew America, a conservative site, about how he'd disproven relativity, evolution, and climate change. Not sure how many others can pull off this trifecta.

Jim Prall said...

Great post but in need of a proofread. Text is swapped around somehow in the 9th paragraph starting "Indeed, " and some other paras. end with no period and words seem to dangle.
Neat stuff though. Thanks!

Russell Seitz said...

Perhaps the most sobering measure of the consequences of Lenard and Stark's crusade is the anti-relativistic contraction of Annalen der Physik in the years that followed.

The journal shrank from a meter a year of bound volumes in 1927, the annus mirabilis of the Solvay Converence to a book about the thickness of the NIPCC report in 1942.

It is however cautionary that, like the cosmological constant , climate sensitivity has proved hard to pin down.

Bestellen Sie eigentlich direkt von Amazon.de? Ohne kostenlose Belieferung, vermute ich.

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

How Zen-like! Anonytroll knows things are boring without reading them. Could it be some sort of skill he has developed to compensate for his illiteracy?

EliRabett said...

Jim, Thanks. Hopefully corrected

Anonymous said...

Lewandowsky is an Einstein, as in "smooth move, Einstein"

Alarmists sure do jump leaps and bounds and exceed their high opinions of each other, very comical.

Lewandosky & Einstein, ROFLMFAO

1

Rattus Norvegicus said...

1, as usual, misses the point. I leave it to it (don't really want to refer to a microbe as him or her, afterall) to figure out what the point was.

John said...

Yes, it's true that Einstein was one of many scientists that were on a "bad list" in Germany during the 1930's. Einstein had renounced his German citizenship in protest of the First World War, and as you can imagine, his act was unpopular with many patriotic Germans, especially veterans. The Nazi party founders were WWI veterans who thought war was an exhilarating and indeed transformational experience.

During the Nazi era, Johannes Stark and others tried to establish an "Aryan physics" movement, combating Einstein and other Jews.

However, it was possible to teach relativity in a German university during the Nazi era, as long as you kept Einstein's name out of the discussion. A course with a title like "Electrodynamics of Rapidly Moving Bodies" would induce a yawn. This information is from Alan Beyerchen's useful 1977 book, Scientists Under Hitler, Politics and the Physics Community in the Third Reich

The stories of German (and other) emigre scientists in the West has been treated in many books. Beyerchen's book is one of the few books to treat with the scientists who stayed in Germany.

And, unlike somebunnnies I could mention, I've actually read the Beyerchen book.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

And "1" continues to provide evidence for Lewandowsky's thesis.

"1", do drop us a line from whatever reality you inhabit.

Anonymous said...

Sorry a_ray still laughing at the Lewandowsky is Einstein...

I know how hard everyone here tries to equate even the smallest skeptic as a "denier" and "Nazi", but this one was just laughable.

FWIW what Lewandosky produced was scince, science-fiction to be precise.

Thanks for the bust a gut Monday!

1

exusian said...

It would seem that no 1's only reason for reading and posting here is to reinforce its own self-assessed sense of superiority since it never contributes anything of substance.

Neven said...

I understand that 1 probably feels that the Galileis and Einsteins can now only be found on WUWT, but where does Lewandowsky get compared to Einstein?

I hope 1 never finds out how silly he looks right now, unless he's willing to learn from such experiences.

Anonymous said...

There are not any Einsteins on WUWT. Nor do I feel any superiority over anyone here, Brian has that covered.

The only reason anyone could ever have of reading Rubbish Run is for entertainment purposes only. Although it is getting rather predictable. "Deniers this, Nazis that"

1

Anonymous said...

It's rather poignantly clear that '1' hasn't read the post, or if he has is deliberately ignoring it's content. It's a shame he doesn't realize how sad his complaints come across...

KR

Anonymous said...

It is sad that KR does not know what 1 has done or not done. For KR it sure is easier just to pretend he does.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

KR,
Now, be fair. It is impossible to know whether "1" has read the post, because he is incapable of commenting intelligently on even the posts he's studied and had read to him.

His learning curve does not have a positive slope, poor dear.

Kevin O'Neill said...

1 says, "Lewandosky & Einstein, ROFLMFAO"

Since the post does not equate Lewandosky to Einstein, it means 1 has either not read the post or failed to comprehend it.

The correct analogy is Lewandosky = Wazeck or Climate science = Relativity.

1 can argue that either of these analogies is laughable, but laughing at "Lewandosky = Einstein" just displays ignorance of the topic, failure to comprehend, inability to create a simple analogy or all of the above.

Of course the fact that all of this has to be spelled out means I'm wasting my time.

Anonymous said...

"In conclusion, one must acknowledge that science denial is the same from every point of observation both in time and in space."

A conclusion after discussing Nazis.

lol You are all nuts. Lewandosky should do a study on rabbets to see how many believe that skeptic's are Nazi sympathizing, anti-Semite, Koch brothers funded paid commenters.

FWIW, No one denies "science" that is a result of scrambled brains and group think.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

"1": " No one denies "science" that is a result of scrambled brains and group think."

OK, let's try to parse that word salad. It seems to be saying that if "science" were the result of scrambled brains and group think than no one (including "1") would deny it.

Logic: fail. English: fail. Math: fail. Science: fail. As a human being: fail.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

Being stuck up a cartoon characters backside, explains your limited view of reality.

I am one of those who does not deny science. You are one of those that has scrambled brains and participates in group think.

1

Aaron said...

It is not that simple. Different people have different world views and different ways of learning.

Consider modern hand spinners and their flyer/bobbin spinning wheels. If you survey hand spinners on Ravelry, you will a significant number of spinners that think twist is inserted by the rotation of the flyer. If you assert that twist is inserted by the rotation of the bobbin, you will be shouted down. I certainly was.

A foot-long piece of yarn of the kind that I spin contains ~100 twists. Of those,~98 twists result from the rotation of the bobbin and ~ 2 twists result from the rotation of the flyer around the bobbin. (See for example Alden Amos, The Big Handbook of Handspinning.) Even Abby Franquemont, the author of Respect the Spindle told me to go read Amos, and then said that twist was inserted by the the flyer and not the rotation of the bobbin. (She either had not read the book,or had completely misunderstood it.)

There is no money or employment here – only an urban myth, people who don't do physics, and an echo chamber. Why this myth is held so tenaciously is beyond my understanding. It is outside of Merchants of Doubt.

Also on Ravelry, one can find the myth that HSS (high speed steel) wood turning chisels can be burnished like steel cabinet scrapers to produce a high quality cutting edge. Again, suggestions that honing HSS tools will produce a much superior cutting edge were shouted down. This was even stranger, as some of the loudest shouters, sell turned objects. Here, I have to think that they have invested in a bad tool grinding technology and do not want to admit that they made a poor choice. (Or, they do in fact hone their tools, but want to keep that technology to produce higher quality wood turnings as a trade secret.)

Here are 2, fairly simple facts of physics that people can easily test. However, when they show me their flyer inserting twist, the bobbin is also rotating (and thereby inserting twist). They show me that a freshly ground and burnished chisel cuts better than a duller chisel. They are not willing to compare their burnished chisel to a honed chisel.

I have an old climbing buddy who has been a lawyer for various environmental consulting firms since 1982. He does not accept AGW. Since 1998, I have walked him through the science of global warming several times and I know an engineer and a geologist that have also fully explained the science to him. We had a big fight about Arctic sea ice melt in 2000. In 2007, he admitted that I was right about THAT. And he admits that storm events and drought events are getting worse. However, AGW as an ongoing concept is just not something he accepts.

Science denial is a psychological and social phenomenon. Climate Science has its own myths, its own echo chambers, and its own failures to do honest tests of its hypothesis.

caveat emptor said...

No one denies "science" that is a result of scrambled brains and group think.

I deny "science" that is a result of scrambled brains and group think so I guess "1" is wrong

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

There ya go again, "1", blaming others for your inability to write.

This "," is a comma. It is a useful element of punctuation. Learn to use it. We'll work on logic, math and science after you learn to write a simple English sentence.

I won't tackle teaching you to be a decent human--I don't think anyone could do that.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

"1",
My, my my, "1", did I strike a nerve? Reduced to playground name-calling. How sad.

But as to substance--do you dismiss the National Academy of science as group think, or do you contend their brains are scrambled?

Brian said...

Hi Aaron, sounds like a long-term friend, so you can ask him for predictions 5-10 years in the future that would change his mind, argue if needed to make them reasonable, and then save that for future reference.

We climbers aren't necessarily smart, but most of us seem to be pretty environmentally oriented.

Anonymous said...

"But as to substance--do you dismiss the National Academy of science as group think, or do you contend their brains are scrambled? "

No and no.

1

EliRabett said...

We are rabetts. And what is your problem?

Anonymous said...

No problems here.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Well, gee, "1", your answer confuses me. You contend that the alarmist position is a product of scrambled brains and group think, and yet the National Academy of Sciences supports that position.

Care to elaborate?

Anonymous said...

"You contend that the alarmist position is a product of scrambled brains and group think..."

Buzz! Wrong as usual. I never made such a statement. Here we go with this game again.

Your scrambled brains and group think cause you to believe (ha) that people actually deny science, are comparable to anti-Semites, Nazis and are all funded by the Koch brothers.

Are you saying the National Academy of Science compares people who disagree with their position to Nazis?

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

No, "1", I'm pretty careful not go Godwin the conversation. Now care to respond to the substance of my question?

The National Academy is quite clearly on record saying climate change is a significant threat? Do you accept this position? If not, what is your basis for rejecting the opinions of those a whole helluva lot smarter than you?

Anonymous said...

Now you are changing the question. Yes climate change is a significant threat, about 2C rise in temperature will have some serious consequences and I do everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint.

!

Anonymous said...

lol 1 not !

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

OK, "1", if climate change represents a significant threat, then why do you contend that it is an alarmist position to say we should do something to address the threat? That, after all, is all our hosts have said. It is all I have said.

Would you be in favor of standard risk reduction methods to be applied in the case of climate change?

Anonymous Troll #1:

"Yes climate change is a significant threat, about 2C rise in temperature will have some serious consequences and I do everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint."

AT1 has just acknowledged that it's only here to derail the conversation, not to argue a position.

Anonymous said...

Mal,

You can enjoy the deniers are anti-Semites tripe all you want. Crap like this should be derailed, but you are too locked into group think and team play to see it.

a_ray,

"That, after all, is all our hosts have said. It is all I have said." And when on those rare occasions the hosts have discussed mitigation strategies have I tried to, what is the word, ah yes, derail the conversation?

I target stupid tripe. Reason Brian is in my sights most of the time. How you miss the real Brian is amazing.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

OK, "1", so if we are to employ standard risk assessment, we first have to bound the risk at the desired level--that means taking the upper bound of sensitivity at the desired confidence level, not the lower bound. That is about 4 degrees per doubling--well into the alarming rate.

Russell Seitz said...

LOL 1, that's 1 hell of a Godwin!

Fergus Brown said...

Clearly, '1', whose name belies it's limit of mathematical competence, is engaging in the well-worn strategy of 'disruption by shouting anything'. There was a chap in our village who made these kinds of noises. After a while, we all get used to thinking of it as part of life's rich tapestry.

AT1: "You can enjoy the deniers are anti-Semites tripe all you want."

Huh? The only one who said anything here about anti-Semites is you, in your comment @29/10/13 2:51 PM. And I never enjoy your comments, with or without your permission.

Are you ever going to say anything that makes sense, AT1?

Oh, okay. It looks like you might be arguing some sort of position after all. The OP discusses the historical evidence that some of the denial of Relativity was motivated by anti-Semitism. Do you not believe that?

Anonymous said...

For Mal,

"I see said the blind man, it all comes back to me now." As he spit into the wind.

1

Sigh. For a brief moment, it looked like AT1 might start making sense.

But that's not why it's here, after all.

Anonymous said...

Sigh. For a brief moment it looked like Mal was going to think for himself, but alas he fell back to the group mentality and stopped all efforts.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

"1", care to point out precisely where the "group think" is to be found in Mal's post? Or for that matter examples of group think elsewhere in the comments?

There's some indication that AT1 considers the association of Relativity-denial with anti-Semitism to be "tripe". The historical record offers ample evidence that there was such an association, however. Without knowing just what AT1 considers "group think" in my comments, I'll merely point out that members of a group may all think correctly, each member having evaluated the same evidence and come to the same conclusion. Does AT1 require everyone who evaluates the same evidence to come to a different conclusion, to avoid "group think"?

AT1 is using the phrase "group think" pejoratively, but other individuals have thought some of the same thoughts as AT1, which means AT1 must itself be engaged in group think. Another own goal by AT1!

Heh. I take it back; sometimes I do enjoy AT1's comments. If you can't beat 'em, have a little fun with 'em 8^)!

Anonymous said...

Mal,

You are arguing against a position I never took.

Good luck with that.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Mal, I am willing to accept anonytroll1's contention that he never took the position you are arguing against. That's credible, because anonytroll1 has never had the courage to take any position about anything.

Anonymous said...

Another a_ray post, another lie.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Gee, AT1, it seems it would be really easy to prove me wrong if you ever had taken a definite position. Cite it.

Anonymous said...

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=4004348319324253497&isPopup=true

"Brian is correct with his terminology, but I think he is ignoring a big future problem with the National Debt and its interest payments."

One of many.

a_ray will now argue that the above is not a position or some other such BS.

yawn

1

Anonymous said...

I see a_ray is proven wrong, again and he runs away, again.

a_ray in baby space.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

No, AT1, I will merely ask incredulously how you can be so dim as to think that a nebulous statement like that constitutes a position. Wow! Just Wow!

Anonymous said...

A_ray wrong again.

I feel sorry for you, I have pity for you. I imagine most statements you read are nebulous, but that is on you not the writer.

Positions;

1) Brian does not think future interest payments on the national debt are going to be a problem.

2) 1 does think future interest payments on the national debt will be a problem.

What is your position on future interest payments on the national debt?

Are you always this dumb? Did you eat lead as a child?

1

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Tommy looks forward to living on one of the future Independent States of Neo America. Preferably one where there is no drug war or anal probing.

Don't worry, you'll get your very own troll state of low IQ nutbags, patrolled by low IQ fascist cops.

It takes all kinds!

Anonymous said...

Thomas babbling at an imaginary caricature, again.

1

dhogaza said...

"What is your position on future interest payments on the national debt?"

If the deficit were zero (meaning the debt were stable) and the interest rate on future payments fixed, each payment would be less than the previous, due to inflation. And as a percentage of budget, shrinks even more due to economic growth and the resulting increase in tax revenue ...

AT1 @30/10/13 11:47 AM: "Mal, You can enjoy the deniers are anti-Semites tripe all you want."

Me @1/11/13 12:02 PM: "There's some indication that AT1 considers the association of Relativity-denial [the topic of the OP] with anti-Semitism to be 'tripe'."

AT1 @4/11/13 10:52 AM: "Mal, You are arguing against a position I never took."

Uhmm, what position was I arguing against? Dang, you're a slippery son-of-a-gun.

Anonymous said...

Mal,

your answer is in your own response as to what I was considering tripe. Your inability to see or understand it is on you.

Dhogaza,

Thank you for the response. Agree, but the question remains can we get the primary operating budget at a surplus to cover the interest payments on the existing debt? We are \$600+ away from that current year.

1

Anonymous said...

I think Brian stole 1's girlfriend in HS (well, 1 was going to ask her out at some point...)

Thus was masked crusader 1 born, vowing to crush Brian at any cost.

Anonymous said...

\$600+ billion not \$600!

1

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

AT1: "Mal, your answer is in your own response as to what I was considering tripe. Your inability to see or understand it is on you."

Ah. So you can't be expected to speak plainly. Sort of like an oracle. Tell me, should I attack the Persians?

Anonymous said...

I have spoken plainly, you have obviously read with zero clarity.

1

Anonymous said...

Ah, a little sensitive are we?

1

AT1: "I have spoken plainly, you have obviously read with zero clarity."

Never trust an oracle.

Anonymous said...

If I'm an Oracle you are an Idiot.

1

Geoffrey S. Koby, translator said...

Note that Wazeck's book, Einstein's Opponents. The Public Controversy about the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s, has now been translated and recently published by Cambridge University Press. See http://www.cambridge.org/9781107017443.