The communist jew Pablo Picasso (Ruiz Blasco) was born in 1881 and died in 1973. The communist jew Albert Einstein was born in 1879 and died in 1955. Picasso was to art as Einstein was to physics. Each never did well in school – they were "bored" (an affliction of those with no imagination) and claimed that their teachers were "stupid." Both had a measure of ability in their fields and both produced immense amounts of trash which were foisted upon the world as legitimate works of genius. Picasso introduced the non-art forms known as collage, cubism and surrealism. Picasso's sculpture went beyond marble and bronze to include items properly described as junk. Einstein's debauchery of physics was far less tangible. One might place his hands upon a "Picasso" and set fire to it; place it at the end of a shooting range or at the bottom of a urinal. With a piece of Einstein baloney, one can do little other than bicker since it is all imaginative anyway – with proper mathematical folderol to scare off the curious. Picasso was far more honest than Einstein. At least, on his death bed, he confessed that his "art" trash was just that and anyone foolish enough to buy it, deserved to lose their money. Old Albert, true to form, would doodle mathematics when musicians entered his home and would play the violin when mathematicians came over for lunch. Einstein was never honest enough to confess to his hokum.
Much of the spaced-out outer space physics we hear of today, is the direct result of nitwits trying to prove nonsense to each other. Einstein put forth theories which, as in the case of the THEORY of evolution, are presently being taught as fact. They've got a long way to go, baby.
We notice a pot here and a pan there. Between them lies a "distance." In order to describe this shared attribute, we resort to a comparison and a counting. The pan might be 3 steps from the pot or it could be said that they are 20 fork-lengths apart. All steps are not the same and neither are the sizes of all forks. Thus, we accept some standard unit such as inch, foot, mile, decameter, cubit, rod, etc., so that our comparisons might become uniform, more practical and thus render greater significance to the count.
Sarah waves to her husband who is up on the roof for shingle repair. The next time she sees him, he is face down on the ground and moaning. Not only did he travel a distance but it took "time" for him to unwillingly travel that distance.
Time is little other than another count in comparison to events which are believed to be uniformly periodic, that is, cyclic (circle). It took perhaps 2 heart-beats for Sarah's husband to slip, scream and go thud. If you had a timer, going tick, tick, tick..., you might have reported the duration of this episode in seconds. Time counting always depends upon something going around in circles or something which appears to be going around in circles, like the geysers of Yellowstone, the rising of the sun, or Clinton's zipper. Today's atomic clocks depend upon certain atoms ejecting, or ejaculating – depending upon their degree of excitement – particles which can be counted. The counting of time depends upon something changing. Things which appear not to change are called "timeless."
When we take the count of a distance and compare it, ratio wise, to the count of time, we end up with another attribute we call velocity – or speed, if the direction remains unchanged. Sarah's husband experienced a average speed of 16 feet in 1 second, or 16 feet per second, during his descent. This is known as the first time-derivative or the first-derivative of distance with respect to time.
At one instant, he had a non-zero velocity and at the point where he kissed Mother Earth, his velocity became zero. He had a change of velocity, which is called the second time-derivative and brings us to another point.
A change of position involves what we call distance and a change of distance over some interval of time, is called velocity when expressed as a quotient (Latin: quotiens – how many times). The quotient, or ratio, of a change of velocity in some period of time, is called acceleration, or deceleration, depending upon whether the velocity is increasing or decreasing. We call this the second time-derivative, as I previously mentioned.
When a 'pedal-to-the-metal' condition occurs while you are riding in your friend's 1957 Chevrolet V8, and you get flattened into the seat's back, you say "Holy hoax, this souped-up rod has awesome acceleration."
The third time-derivative, as you have now guessed, is the rate (ratio) of change of acceleration relative to time. The "derivative" business is for mathematicians. Engineers call this one "jerk" while the physicists prefer the term "pulse," which rhymes with "impulse," the time derivative of momentum. "Jerk," "pulse," or whatever, relates to the jolt the moving bodies endure during a joy ride – especially if the end of the journey is a stone wall. This derivative is important in the design of items such as cams (variable curvature and/or eccentric wheels).
A mathematician, due to the algorithmic nature of these manipulations, could go on to 4th derivatives, 5th 6th, and so on and so forth, into far-out space, which most of mathematics is anyway.
We apply distance measurements directly to things in our real world. Length, breadth and thickness, as it were. Length, width and height, as it double-were. Objects, we say, have 3-dimensions. An object, such as Sarah's husband, can be measured in this way but we have another useful count to further describe him. At one moment, he was moving a damaged shingle, and at another, he was flat on the ground. Each of these positions can be labeled with a time number such as, 3:05 P.M., or closer, if you happen to be hung up on this sort of thing. In this sense, some say objects can exist in 4-dimensions. In fact, many are taught that time IS the 4th dimension. Mathematicians, as always, can be counted upon to expand this sort of deal into 5, 6, 69, or 6,000,000 dimensions. They, like Holocaust squabblers, even get into debates over which is what and why what is which. None of it's real but often it is useful – like scaring people into submission over imaginary threats from imaginary gods. Even when applied to computer memory, dimensions greater than 3 will still be PHYSICALLY stored – real world – in only 3 dimensions. In computer programming, all dimensions are expressed linearly (one dimension) with one byte following another like a string of beads.
Everything we deem real exists in 3-dimensions, exactly. In high school geometry, we were given an example of a 1-dimensional object – a line segment. The teacher presses a line of chalk onto a blackboard and says that it represents something with no width, no thickness, but only length. "There is no such thing," I shouted from my seat, "How can you see something which has no width and no breadth"? What the teacher drew on the board not only had length, but its width could be measured and its thickness could also. Chauk occupies space. I was told that if I insisted upon thinking only about things which were real, I'd never become a mathematician.
A "point" having no width, no length and no height is apparently "real" to mathematicians who are often found talking to these invisible objects – usually in Greek, such as epsilon, delta, omega, theta and "Let's play 'drop the soap'." That's why mathematicians were immediately attracted to the computer's "virtual reality" and viewed it as an electronic god instead of the useful, and very stupid, but fast, machine that it really was.
Physics is now heavily contaminated with this sort of mathematical balderdash and imaginary attributes, and sad to say, many of our youth are addicted to this type of virtual narcotic. The Internet represents a flight from reality and that, for the most part, represents a new variety of insanity.
I have difficulty with terms such as "space warp" and "time warp." Space is the epitome of nothingness which is described by 3 dimensions – usually by some object such as Bill Clinton, who can be said to be "occupying space." Space is the "field" in which all matter exists. (Forces, such as gravitation, do not have physical dimensions so cannot be said to occupy space. They exist IN space but do not occupy space. Very nice.) How one "warps" nothingness is an odd thing to contemplate. Time is a count of periods, or cycles. If one experiences a "time warp," then was the count sent off in another direction? How do you bend, or twist, a number count? I suppose that if you bend a horseshoe, you can be said to have also bent the space it occupies. Oh well. I further suppose that all of these space-heads tell time with rubber clocks thus accounting for their bending, and stretching, of time. (Did you ever look at the absolutely ugly puss that Einstein was saddled with? Now, that's a real warp!)
There it is! A god-damned "black hole"! We cannot see one but when the computer god gets through with the mountains of data the instruments send to it, it becomes as real as Mount Olympus, infinity and a five-sided cube. Never mind that certain humans – convinced that they should see things which aren't there – originated the instructions given to the computer. The whole scene is like a Spielberg movie – jewish science – that is, start with a conclusion (Einstein was richt!) and then warp things to fit. There's that W-word again!
The moon occupies space. We know the approximate volume, that is, the product of its 3 dimensions and a magical finagle factor needed to make sure a cube becomes a sphere. If the moon were to suddenly vanish, what would we call the space it originally occupied? (Its soul?) Was the space in the Universe increased thereby? How could we tell where the moon space ended and the non-moon space began, without the moon? We can only talk sensibly about these matters providing we engage the concept of borders, or boundaries. We cannot see, nor visualize, anything unless it has boundaries. If you awoke one morning and the only thing you perceived was the color red, you would be effectively blind – your eyes would be worthless. Unfortunately, my toe nails are deaf and cannot hear what you are saying.
We are told that a black hole "sucks" in anything, and everything, including light, which happens to get close to it. (How close? And has Bill heard about it?) A BH (black hole) must have a position relative to something, otherwise the talk about getting close would be nonsense.
Whether gravity, magnetism, or other forces, none can exist without the presence of matter at some point. As mentioned in an above paragraph: when the moon vanished so did its attributes which includes a gravitational field. So, no matter what a BH is, it must be matter, or accompanied by matter and that matter does have a boundary. Some, if not all, of a BH occupies space in the sense that all matter does. Effectively, a BH contains some portion which is opaque in the usual meaning of the term and its light "sucking" ability renders the whole opaque. So, what's on the other side of a BH? Could one BH be blocking the view of another BH? How can we tell if there is a small BH parked in front of a larger BH? Inquiring minds want to know.
Once you enter the realm of jewish science, all reason – at least Aryan reason – flies out the window, or up the chimney, if you prefer. You then enter the domain of the religious and if you become a true believer, you also become an instant "genius." It's sort of like a jewish "awards" ceremony where one batch of jews pats another batch of jews on the back and hands out Oscars purchased from other jews.
Did you ever notice the similarity between a BH and the doors at Auschwitz? Things entered but never came out again. If the chronology had been otherwise, perhaps the Nürnberg trials would have focused upon "black hole crimes" and the recent cosmic blather could have been about finding "Auschwitz doors" in outer space.
As I mentioned in SCHMUCK ONTOGENESIS, we are trained to be intimidated by people wearing frocks, sprouting diplomas out their ears, and those with gun barrels stuffed up our noses. This is yet another intimidation: if you don't understand it, then it must come from a genius (you idiot!) and the fewer people who understand it (you idiot!), the greater is its profundity (you idiot!). I don't understand why the Yellow-bellied Swamp-humper continually bobs its tail up and down. Does that make the bird a genius because I fail to understand it? I doubt if this feathered friend understands it either. When was the last time you understood the village idiot? Or a blubbering "survivor"? Or someone phased out on Kickapoo joy juice?
I have offered the above, not for a matter to debate, but to hopefully stimulate some mind into action, and thus to question. We, the people of the West, have allowed intellectual quacks to disarm us and it is about time that we melted the tar and gathered up the feathers in preparation for a good time in the old town tonight. Once we return to the time-proven "shoot first and ask questions later" approach, we'll be a whole lot better off. Hang the son-of-a-bitch who raped our neighbor's daughter and then wonder about his disadvantaged childhood afterward.
Tom Metzger claims that 90 percent of the American people have a jewish mind-set. That, I understand.
12 April 1998