When a boat appears on the horizon, only the top of it is visible. As the boat approaches the viewer more of the boat is revealed. This is the classic proof that the Earth is spherical.
When light passes something electromagnetically active, it shifts its direction of travel in a predictable way in relation to the electromagnet. google: faraday rotation When light passes a body of mass, it shifts its direction in a predictable way. google: Einstein's relativity (not Galilean)
The progressive revealing of the sailboat (always top to bottom) proves that the Earth is spherical, but there is no such equivalent for the "fabric of the universe." Rather, light demonstrably bends around things that are electromagnetically active (all matter) since the 1800's. Because light bends in different directions, based upon where the matter is located, it is a false analogy to compare the bending of light around matter to the sailboat scenario.
Now that I've dispelled the most common justification for a spherical hyper-dimensional universe, please provide another justification for it. Just because you write it off as obvious does not make it so.
One last thing: "into itself?" Wouldn't that make it smaller as it gets bigger; in other words, stay the same size?
Exactly. It would be akin to having an offshore banking account, and then that bank getting robbed by citizens of that bank's country. It still affects the account holder in the other country.
Is it possible that the second tube wasn't in fact free of every single tiny bacterium? That, more likely explanation, would account for this phenomenon a lot better than all kinds of quantum craziness.
Think of it as freedom to whirl your arms around. You're free to do that until you hit someone on the nose, at which point you're prosecuted for assault, not for whirling your arms around. You're free to whirl you arms as much as you want, the government will not stop you. Whirl away. But if you hit someone, you're done for assault.
Is that clear enough for you, or do you want a car analogy as well?
I don't see anything that approximates what you're saying after "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." As a matter of fact, that's the entire First Amendment. Any contradictory law that follows this is null and void, from a legal standpoint.
It's high time to make up our mind as a nation as to which side of the coin we want. Are we going to have the freedom to say whatever we want, in which case we expunge defamation/slander and espionage laws, or the freedom to express most things except for ExtensiveLaundryList, in which case we do away with the First Amendment, or at least parts of it?
I, personally, would prefer *actual* freedom to say whatever the individual wants. Any laundry list can be perverted to censor more than was originally intended, and this usually happens to the more juicy tidbits of information.
On the Pentagon Papers, it's not very clear-cut that the press has unlimited right to publish classified documents. Yes, Times v Unites States was eventually ruled for the Times et. al., but the opinions of the justices were really divided.
The Espionage Act still criminalizes anyone
"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document,... relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."
So there is precedent in the Pentagon Papers case, but I'm not sure how it would be applied in a +400,000 document release such as this.
Once the ISPs start losing a significant portion of their revenue stream, they'll think twice about arbitrarily banning paying customers from their service.
People escape from N. Korea. If a noteworthy protest, or heck, if an attempted revolution had taken place, don't you think that those who escaped would eventually mention this to a news outlet? Beyond a reasonable doubt, yes.
It seems to me that you mistakenly categorize the military as being distinct from the population. There is plenty of historical precedent where members of the military overthrew (or attempted to overthrow) a despotic regime. If *I'm* not mistaken, then N. Korea probably has a draft, and all of the general public opinion gets injected into the military with every new recruit. If the people truly felt oppressed, then some indication of this would be evidenced by a coup attempt. As this has not happened, any claim that the N. Korean government isn't approved (or at the very least condoned) by its constituents must be taken with a grain of salt. For historical precedent, there were protests and revolutions in Hungary, E. Germany, etc concerning the USSR. Many assassination plots were attempted with the Nazis. etc
Anybody smart enough to become a leader of a country is presumably smart enough not to sacrifice the vast majority of his population, as would be the case in the event of a nuclear war. Without constituents, there are no taxes. Without taxes, and people to work for those taxes (government contracts etc), the leader starves. One can only cram so much food and water into a bunker, after all; eventually this leader would still starve. Not to mention quality of life issues, but I suppose those are more... flexible when it comes to a fundamentalist/idealist. The point remains, anybody with enough wit to take the reigns of a country probably has a fundamental understanding of what happens without the majority of that country's population, and consequentially wouldn't dare to gamble with their lives.
Are you a telepath? Can you teach the rest of us? Because you seem to know an awful lot about the internal motivations of foreign countries' leaders, and what they would or wouldn't do. Have you considered a career as a 'personal consultant' (or whatever they call occult psychics) to our own country's leadership?... if so, please don't.
We just recently had our own religious fanatic in office, and he had opportunity to nuke a whole hell of a lot of infidels. I guess we're all lucky he only decided to invade two of their countries for dubious reasons. At least he didn't nuke the entire middle east. So you see there's hope. If our own experience is anything to go on, then Iran will only invade two non-muslim nations, and N. Korea will only reinvade S. Korea, both sans nukes. This is assuming that their leadership is exactly as crazy as our own past leadership was; they could be saner, they could be crazier, but let's wait until they actually do something before we 'retaliate'. I didn't have to tell you this because I'm sure you read my mind to ascertain my own motivations and so on long before you get this post, but I figured I'd share with the rest of the class. Cheerio!
Who in their right minds would invade a country over a hostage situation that should have been handled domestically (viz.: by the Iranians)? Where is this rhetoric from Tehran, and how does it size up against our own? (Give us the context too, if you wouldn't mind.) Cite your sources in regards to the meddling in Iraq. Pure speculation pieces won't do, of course; we'll need actual proof. Going right down the list here: when did any official communique from the government of Iran state that, somewhere in their 5 year plan, they're going to wipe Israel of the map? Could it be they were making campaign promises? Again, we'll need sources and context. Finally, how is attempting to catch up to the US (and France, and China, and Russia, and India, and Pakistan, etc etc) militarily any sign of aggression? If anything it's a sign of a national survival instinct.
Thank you in advance for supporting your assertions. Few people ever do.
I don't see any difference between N. Korea and Iran in the respect that they're different from us, yet functional. If the people of N. Korea didn't approve of their government, one would see demonstrations, if not coup d'état attempts. This, however, is nowhere to be seen. From this we can infer that their government is adequately representing, and working for, them. A nuclear war would destroy most of their population, and would go against their current status quo (of government evidently working for its people). [I forget who said it first, but the people get the government that they deserve.]
I doubt that the N. Koreans don't have any idea regarding what would happen if they detonated a nuke somewhere. Just because they're different from us doesn't mean they're insane. Perhaps you could cite precedents of the N. Koreans' that support your notion of their leadership is so mentally incompetent that they'd risk a nuclear war, and why you personally think they haven't learned from this.
>> Nothing but an appeal to authority would convince you?
> Essentially yes. If I am going to be asked to make a final decision on whether or not I would support the continued research at the LHC I would want a recognized authority to make certain statements regarding the safety and chances of exotic particles, black holes, and other possible catastrophic side effects.
Unfortunately nobody is a final authority, as far as I can tell. Einstein is dead, and presumably nobody wants to put their academic reputation on the line for speaking out against or for this.
>> It seems, from what you said, as though whatever argument *I* would present wouldn't suffice to persuade you either way.
> You could persuade me certainly. I would absolutely take what you say and attempt to verify it with a 2nd source. I don't think the fact I would want to verify the data and your claims offends you. After all the scientific process as a whole depends on verification and review from our peers.
I was just making sure that the criteria here for a response wasn't limited to an appeal to authority. Having established this, I now know that presenting an argument contra relativistic mass isn't just a waste of time.
>> Forgive and inform me if this is not the case, and I'll be happy to explain why black holes can't be created through sheer acceleration (relativistic mass).
> I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say about this. I was modded down in my original statement, but I really am not some alarmist or melodramatic person that wants to stop the research at all costs.
> Considering all of the data that has been presented to me to date, I at this time do not feel that we should continue the research.
> The information has been presented to me through postings here obviously, but also other articles and statements from scientists as well. I would say the quality of the data certainly varies, but the one common element in it is that the chance of these negative side effects has never been presented as zero.
> If we conduct this research and create an accident that could theoretically have an effect as large as our own planet or solar system I would say performing that research would be reasonably considered risky.
> If you can explain to me that the odds of something like this are zero, or even higher than I have previously understood, I would very much appreciate that and it would be a positive contribution to this thread.
What follows is a paper I penned for the a series called/Occam's Razor/, a reductionist series on physics. For more, I can be reached at sven.gelbhaar at gmail dot com.
On Relativistic Mass
Sven Gelbhaar
27 October 2008
If two objects collide at relativistic speeds, it will appear from their perspectives that momentum symmetry breaks down due to properties of light [Lorentz Transformation] (or so it's believed as per Special Relativity). To work around this and conserve momentum, Einstein postulated that the mass of an object increases as its
velocity does. (1) In a previous paper entitled Revised Theory of Relativity I've pointed out that the properties of light might allow for optical illusions, if it truly has a constant speed, but perception isn't always reality.
Take the case of a warped circus mirror. When you look into one, it may appear as if your torso is half its original size and your legs are a mile high, but does this mean that in reality that that's the case? No. If the speed of light is limited to c, then objects moving at incredibly high relativistic speeds might
appear to be distorted, but they really aren't. (body:colliding high speed particles, mirror:speed) This (postulate) extends to the ostensible break in the symmetry of momentum. From the point of view of colliding high speed particles, it looks as though momentum isn't conserved, bu
Nothing but an appeal to authority would convince you? It seems, from what you said, as though whatever argument *I* would present wouldn't suffice to persuade you either way. Forgive and inform me if this is not the case, and I'll be happy to explain why black holes can't be created through sheer acceleration (relativistic mass).
Leo Tolstoy (author of _War_and_Peace_) maintains that this was most likely the result of the breakdown of civil services (the fire dept. or its equivalent) due to the mass exodus.
What happened to free will? If it is humanity's wish to destroy itself, why would God (or whom/what-ever) stop that but not the individual murderers, rapists, bankers, stock brokers, etc? I'm seeing a double standard here.
As I always comment when this topic comes up: people need to learn the difference between relativistic mass and invariant mass. There will be no black holes etc.
Cheap drugs? Where? You'll find that most other (developed) nations have cheaper pharmaceuticals than the USA does. Unless you're talking about illicit drugs, about which I wouldn't know.
I didn't provoke the Goodwin law, as this conversation was already about Nazis by the time I jumped in. So no, you're wrong on that account.
Killing massive amounts of innocent civilians in the name of freedom and democracy is pretty ridiculous in and of itself. As a matter of fact, it's right up there with "we had to destroy the village to save it." Also, how is freedom and democracy working out in the Monarchy that is England? Last I heard they didn't exactly have freedom of speech, etc. Not that it really matters in this debate. The main gist of my argument is that England declared war on Germany, and botched the whole thing to the point where they had to slaughter millions of innocent civilians during cowardly night bombing runs. That's a great example of 'dying a romantic death on the wings of freedom', if you ask me./sarcasm>
My contention still stands that the Nazis would have over-extended themselves, and that they wouldn't have been able to keep up their draconian rule after a long and expensive (as in all resources, including man-power) military campaign.
I may have been slightly out of line when I labeled England as inherently inferior to Germany, but if you look at everything from their GDP, to landmass, to population, to morale (at that juncture in the war), to scientific achievements, to culture, then my point there still stands.
Killing innocent civilians en masse is not an acceptable method of achieving freedom, which is a commodity to be enjoyed by that same group of people. I await your counter argument, which I'm sure will include much corroboration, with much anticipation.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had mod points. Great post!
When a boat appears on the horizon, only the top of it is visible. As the boat approaches the viewer more of the boat is revealed. This is the classic proof that the Earth is spherical.
When light passes something electromagnetically active, it shifts its direction of travel in a predictable way in relation to the electromagnet. google: faraday rotation
When light passes a body of mass, it shifts its direction in a predictable way. google: Einstein's relativity (not Galilean)
The progressive revealing of the sailboat (always top to bottom) proves that the Earth is spherical, but there is no such equivalent for the "fabric of the universe." Rather, light demonstrably bends around things that are electromagnetically active (all matter) since the 1800's. Because light bends in different directions, based upon where the matter is located, it is a false analogy to compare the bending of light around matter to the sailboat scenario.
Now that I've dispelled the most common justification for a spherical hyper-dimensional universe, please provide another justification for it. Just because you write it off as obvious does not make it so.
One last thing: "into itself?" Wouldn't that make it smaller as it gets bigger; in other words, stay the same size?
Exactly. It would be akin to having an offshore banking account, and then that bank getting robbed by citizens of that bank's country. It still affects the account holder in the other country.
Is it possible that the second tube wasn't in fact free of every single tiny bacterium? That, more likely explanation, would account for this phenomenon a lot better than all kinds of quantum craziness.
Encrypted traffic can be deprioritized at the ISP level, just like any other traffic.
Think of it as freedom to whirl your arms around. You're free to do that until you hit someone on the nose, at which point you're prosecuted for assault, not for whirling your arms around. You're free to whirl you arms as much as you want, the government will not stop you. Whirl away. But if you hit someone, you're done for assault.
Is that clear enough for you, or do you want a car analogy as well?
I don't see anything that approximates what you're saying after "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." As a matter of fact, that's the entire First Amendment. Any contradictory law that follows this is null and void, from a legal standpoint.
It's high time to make up our mind as a nation as to which side of the coin we want. Are we going to have the freedom to say whatever we want, in which case we expunge defamation/slander and espionage laws, or the freedom to express most things except for ExtensiveLaundryList, in which case we do away with the First Amendment, or at least parts of it?
I, personally, would prefer *actual* freedom to say whatever the individual wants. Any laundry list can be perverted to censor more than was originally intended, and this usually happens to the more juicy tidbits of information.
On the Pentagon Papers, it's not very clear-cut that the press has unlimited right to publish classified documents. Yes, Times v Unites States was eventually ruled for the Times et. al., but the opinions of the justices were really divided.
The Espionage Act still criminalizes anyone
Know what trumps that? The First Amendment. Next!
Once the ISPs start losing a significant portion of their revenue stream, they'll think twice about arbitrarily banning paying customers from their service.
That's funny. They have no problems taping us.
Thank you.
People escape from N. Korea. If a noteworthy protest, or heck, if an attempted revolution had taken place, don't you think that those who escaped would eventually mention this to a news outlet? Beyond a reasonable doubt, yes.
It seems to me that you mistakenly categorize the military as being distinct from the population. There is plenty of historical precedent where members of the military overthrew (or attempted to overthrow) a despotic regime. If *I'm* not mistaken, then N. Korea probably has a draft, and all of the general public opinion gets injected into the military with every new recruit. If the people truly felt oppressed, then some indication of this would be evidenced by a coup attempt. As this has not happened, any claim that the N. Korean government isn't approved (or at the very least condoned) by its constituents must be taken with a grain of salt. For historical precedent, there were protests and revolutions in Hungary, E. Germany, etc concerning the USSR. Many assassination plots were attempted with the Nazis. etc
Anybody smart enough to become a leader of a country is presumably smart enough not to sacrifice the vast majority of his population, as would be the case in the event of a nuclear war. Without constituents, there are no taxes. Without taxes, and people to work for those taxes (government contracts etc), the leader starves. One can only cram so much food and water into a bunker, after all; eventually this leader would still starve. Not to mention quality of life issues, but I suppose those are more... flexible when it comes to a fundamentalist/idealist. The point remains, anybody with enough wit to take the reigns of a country probably has a fundamental understanding of what happens without the majority of that country's population, and consequentially wouldn't dare to gamble with their lives.
Are you a telepath? Can you teach the rest of us? Because you seem to know an awful lot about the internal motivations of foreign countries' leaders, and what they would or wouldn't do. Have you considered a career as a 'personal consultant' (or whatever they call occult psychics) to our own country's leadership? ... if so, please don't.
We just recently had our own religious fanatic in office, and he had opportunity to nuke a whole hell of a lot of infidels. I guess we're all lucky he only decided to invade two of their countries for dubious reasons. At least he didn't nuke the entire middle east. So you see there's hope. If our own experience is anything to go on, then Iran will only invade two non-muslim nations, and N. Korea will only reinvade S. Korea, both sans nukes. This is assuming that their leadership is exactly as crazy as our own past leadership was; they could be saner, they could be crazier, but let's wait until they actually do something before we 'retaliate'. I didn't have to tell you this because I'm sure you read my mind to ascertain my own motivations and so on long before you get this post, but I figured I'd share with the rest of the class. Cheerio!
Who in their right minds would invade a country over a hostage situation that should have been handled domestically (viz.: by the Iranians)? Where is this rhetoric from Tehran, and how does it size up against our own? (Give us the context too, if you wouldn't mind.) Cite your sources in regards to the meddling in Iraq. Pure speculation pieces won't do, of course; we'll need actual proof. Going right down the list here: when did any official communique from the government of Iran state that, somewhere in their 5 year plan, they're going to wipe Israel of the map? Could it be they were making campaign promises? Again, we'll need sources and context. Finally, how is attempting to catch up to the US (and France, and China, and Russia, and India, and Pakistan, etc etc) militarily any sign of aggression? If anything it's a sign of a national survival instinct.
Thank you in advance for supporting your assertions. Few people ever do.
I don't see any difference between N. Korea and Iran in the respect that they're different from us, yet functional. If the people of N. Korea didn't approve of their government, one would see demonstrations, if not coup d'état attempts. This, however, is nowhere to be seen. From this we can infer that their government is adequately representing, and working for, them. A nuclear war would destroy most of their population, and would go against their current status quo (of government evidently working for its people). [I forget who said it first, but the people get the government that they deserve.]
I doubt that the N. Koreans don't have any idea regarding what would happen if they detonated a nuke somewhere. Just because they're different from us doesn't mean they're insane. Perhaps you could cite precedents of the N. Koreans' that support your notion of their leadership is so mentally incompetent that they'd risk a nuclear war, and why you personally think they haven't learned from this.
How is calling the German army by its official name in any way pretentious? 'Accurate' is more like it.
Maybe now that they have these new toys we can stop agitating them like schoolyard bullies. Or is this the wrong forum to post this?
Clearly we should encourage German immigration. I imagine beer and sausage are a lot more renewable sources of energy than carbon fuels.
>> Nothing but an appeal to authority would convince you?
> Essentially yes. If I am going to be asked to make a final decision on whether or not I would support the continued research at the LHC I would want a recognized authority to make certain statements regarding the safety and chances of exotic particles, black holes, and other possible catastrophic side effects.
Unfortunately nobody is a final authority, as far as I can tell. Einstein is dead, and presumably nobody wants to put their academic reputation on the line for speaking out against or for this.
>> It seems, from what you said, as though whatever argument *I* would present wouldn't suffice to persuade you either way.
> You could persuade me certainly. I would absolutely take what you say and attempt to verify it with a 2nd source. I don't think the fact I would want to verify the data and your claims offends you. After all the scientific process as a whole depends on verification and review from our peers.
I was just making sure that the criteria here for a response wasn't limited to an appeal to authority. Having established this, I now know that presenting an argument contra relativistic mass isn't just a waste of time.
>> Forgive and inform me if this is not the case, and I'll be happy to explain why black holes can't be created through sheer acceleration (relativistic mass).
> I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say about this. I was modded down in my original statement, but I really am not some alarmist or melodramatic person that wants to stop the research at all costs.
> Considering all of the data that has been presented to me to date, I at this time do not feel that we should continue the research.
> The information has been presented to me through postings here obviously, but also other articles and statements from scientists as well. I would say the quality of the data certainly varies, but the one common element in it is that the chance of these negative side effects has never been presented as zero.
> If we conduct this research and create an accident that could theoretically have an effect as large as our own planet or solar system I would say performing that research would be reasonably considered risky.
> If you can explain to me that the odds of something like this are zero, or even higher than I have previously understood, I would very much appreciate that and it would be a positive contribution to this thread.
What follows is a paper I penned for the a series called /Occam's Razor/, a reductionist series on physics. For more, I can be reached at sven.gelbhaar at gmail dot com.
On Relativistic Mass
Sven Gelbhaar
27 October 2008
If two objects collide at relativistic speeds, it will appear from their perspectives that momentum symmetry breaks down due to properties of light [Lorentz Transformation] (or so it's believed as per Special Relativity). To work around this and conserve momentum, Einstein postulated that the mass of an object increases as its velocity does. (1) In a previous paper entitled Revised Theory of Relativity I've pointed out that the properties of light might allow for optical illusions, if it truly has a constant speed, but perception isn't always reality.
Take the case of a warped circus mirror. When you look into one, it may appear as if your torso is half its original size and your legs are a mile high, but does this mean that in reality that that's the case? No. If the speed of light is limited to c, then objects moving at incredibly high relativistic speeds might appear to be distorted, but they really aren't. (body:colliding high speed particles, mirror:speed) This (postulate) extends to the ostensible break in the symmetry of momentum. From the point of view of colliding high speed particles, it looks as though momentum isn't conserved, bu
Nothing but an appeal to authority would convince you? It seems, from what you said, as though whatever argument *I* would present wouldn't suffice to persuade you either way. Forgive and inform me if this is not the case, and I'll be happy to explain why black holes can't be created through sheer acceleration (relativistic mass).
Leo Tolstoy (author of _War_and_Peace_) maintains that this was most likely the result of the breakdown of civil services (the fire dept. or its equivalent) due to the mass exodus.
What happened to free will? If it is humanity's wish to destroy itself, why would God (or whom/what-ever) stop that but not the individual murderers, rapists, bankers, stock brokers, etc? I'm seeing a double standard here.
As I always comment when this topic comes up: people need to learn the difference between relativistic mass and invariant mass. There will be no black holes etc.
Cheap drugs? Where? You'll find that most other (developed) nations have cheaper pharmaceuticals than the USA does. Unless you're talking about illicit drugs, about which I wouldn't know.
I didn't provoke the Goodwin law, as this conversation was already about Nazis by the time I jumped in. So no, you're wrong on that account.
Killing massive amounts of innocent civilians in the name of freedom and democracy is pretty ridiculous in and of itself. As a matter of fact, it's right up there with "we had to destroy the village to save it." Also, how is freedom and democracy working out in the Monarchy that is England? Last I heard they didn't exactly have freedom of speech, etc. Not that it really matters in this debate. The main gist of my argument is that England declared war on Germany, and botched the whole thing to the point where they had to slaughter millions of innocent civilians during cowardly night bombing runs. That's a great example of 'dying a romantic death on the wings of freedom', if you ask me. /sarcasm>
My contention still stands that the Nazis would have over-extended themselves, and that they wouldn't have been able to keep up their draconian rule after a long and expensive (as in all resources, including man-power) military campaign.
I may have been slightly out of line when I labeled England as inherently inferior to Germany, but if you look at everything from their GDP, to landmass, to population, to morale (at that juncture in the war), to scientific achievements, to culture, then my point there still stands.
Killing innocent civilians en masse is not an acceptable method of achieving freedom, which is a commodity to be enjoyed by that same group of people. I await your counter argument, which I'm sure will include much corroboration, with much anticipation.