I take it by your ad hominem that you admit that you're merely trolling for an argument. If this is not the case then provide justification for your view.
...or are you someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, mistaken for consorting and aiding terrorists of a foreign country by another foreign country's occupational force? We'll never know without a fair trail.
Without a trail, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused of being a 'terrorist' was actually acting in such a capacity, the label thereof is no more convincing than just calling someone a witch back in the 1800s (or whenever that was the scapegoat label de jour) and burning them at the stake. Granted, now we just torture and incarcerate them indefinitely on a plot of land legally owned (Cuba doesn't accept the rent money, after all) by a country that the USA still won't trade with, nor allow entry into by its own citizens, which is rather convenient if you ask me.
Here's an idea: The UN formed Israel, so it should be fairly easy to sway the UN to protect their invention. If I were the President/Prime_Minister/Chancellor of Israel I would petition the UN to swear to defend her the next time someone declares war on her for no more than ideological or religious reasons. Also, I would make use of the supposedly competent secret service (the mossad) to stop the pathetic mosquito (rocket/mortar) attacks that were plaguing her. As always: use the right tool for the right job. I contend that it should not take a full scale symmetrical war to stop a few supposedly rogue military elements from firing a few occasional rockets into Israel, so when they invoked such clearly (IMO) overbearing measures the impression anyone should walk away with is "they're making a power play".
When you start firebombing (whole) cities you open yourself up to the possibility of reprisal, for after all the (seemingly childish but effective) "they started" justification would exist. At that point all the gloves come off, and the global political opinion will contend that the enemy can do whatever he wants in retaliation, for you have just demonstrated that you have no respect for the sanctity of the civilian population, who in this case had no idea that their leader was going to invade their neighbors (etc) when they allowed him to come to power. Not to mention that by the time he was in power, there was no real way to remove him from it (there's a movie about one of *many* such attempts to 'impeach' him that just recently came out, after all - admittedly an attempt that probably came all too late). It is no leap of logic to claim that those millions of civilians that were bombed out of existence during the raids on German cities were in fact INNOCENT.
You made some hasty claim indicating that if your city was bombed non-stop you'd want to reconsider your choice in leaders. I've already mentioned that it wasn't a choice available to any of them at that point in time. Furthermore, how do you dispose of a leader when you and millions of your neighbors are turned into 'crispy critters' as you so eloquently put it?
To answer your original question: Had I been the Prime Minister of Britain when it became evident that Germany would completely crush my pathetic little island nation (who, incidentally, declared war on Germany), then I would NOT show such a complete disregard for civilian lives for the reasons stated above (reprisal, global political backlash, etc). Rather, the strategy I would have employed would have been to seek out a peaceful resolution to the war which my nation had declared (to 'cut my loses', if you will). If that failed, I would have petitioned my allies for further assistance. If that failed, I would have accepted defeat, realizing that like Rome (the previous Reich), Germany would have eventually tired itself out, and that it was probably easier at that juncture to defeat them from the inside; once the zeal of having defeated my inherently inferior aggressive island nation had waned.
This is definitely on the mark, for physics started out as 'natural philosophy'. However, the more accurate description of what Plato meant is that we are only indirectly observing/sampling reality in that we see the effects (light reflection, the effects in atmospheric pressure [sound], etc) of external objects. The hologram theory fails because:
If the universe were a hologram as devised by intersecting lasers from the 'edge of the universe' (sphere of visible universe) then you'd run into a number of problems.
An extraordinarily easy way to test this: go into a room without windows (basement for instance) and turn on a light. No external light source should be able to penetrate the walls to illuminate the room, and yet light is still possible within this context. Obviously the world isn't a giant hologram.
Also: you'd run into problems illuminating objects close to planets and other large objects, especially with other objects flying ~ overhead. Given our understanding of light, you'd at least see color warping in situations like that. Yet we don't. While things might dim a little bit, artificial light still works even here.
Furthermore: How would you 'draw'/'render' an individual photon? A photon isn't perceptible save from the direction in which it is traveling. Holograms project an image 360^2 degrees (in a 3 dimensional array).
Now on to the experiment itself:
Reasons for slight differences in the output of the laser 'spacetime' ruler: possible angles for escaping concentrated light out of the optical resonator (laser) > 1, therefore there could be slight delays (as the angle of escaping light increases and decreases) in light emission, which would temporarily jolt the output on the end of the 600 metre course. I'm surprised to see people (especially with those credentials) still assuming that lased light is 1 photon across (on the X and Y planes). This further supports my assumption that modern-day physics is a form of sobriety/IQ/etc test.
Another easy explanation: atmosphere has a slight refractive index. See: Gravitational Lensing && Faraday Experiment. Unless all atmosphere was completely evacuated from the confines of the experiment, and it was conducted in a zero gravity environment, it is perfectly reasonable to expect differing output from it. Factor in the non-perfectly-concentrated light output of laser light and it would be extraordinary if *no* differences in output were observed.
You're probably right, however the chances of that are pretty slim. They'd have to have a deviation in the anatomy of their eye, their occipital lobe, different definition of colors (different words for the same 'sensuous intuition' as per Kant), and so on; all of which are rather unlikely, especially given the forum that we're discussing this on. Not to mention: what fun would being all humble all the time be?;)
I probably didn't phrase this properly. What I meant to say is that:
relativistic mass = invariant mass + effect_of_relative_speed(invariant_mass)
Now, if photons have invariant mass then it stands to reason that we should be able to work our way backwards from this equation to derive $invariant_mass for the photon. Seeing as how the momentum they conserve is finite, one would naturally expect that the rest mass of a photon follows suit (viz. that it has finite rest mass).
I guess it all depends on how accurate/deep/etc you want to be when discussing these things. The sky can be said to be blue, just like an object can. What this ($foo is blue) interprets to is what 'wavelengths' of light they reflect or refract. So even though this property can typically only be sampled (observed) indirectly via light, it can still be said to be a property of the object(s) being described, for it is this property that alters the light. (form = function)
Unless I'm completely off the mark, in which case please feel free to ignore or correct me.
So you're saying that light has relativistic mass? When you start off with zero mass, how does it increase to positive mass by increasing velocity? 0 + (0*1) is still 0 (this is overly simplified, but you get the point).
Do you ever notice how 'Yiddish' is just German but with Americanized spellings? So anyway, I was wondering what you actually wrote. Alle zehn (10) sollen dier 'rause fallen. [All ten (10) should fall out.] Nicht einer sohl dier bleiben. [Not one should remain to you.] (Last sentence was idiomatic, I presume). Furthermore: ____ sohl er vern in a hangegleiter, bei Tag sohl er hengen, und bei Nacht sohl er brennen. [___ he should far in a hang-glider, by day he should hang(glide), and by night he should burn.]
That is some crazy stuff. I'd like to know what you actually meant to say.
What about if you electronically sign a document describing your idea in detail, via PGP/GPG? This includes a timestamp as well, but does it hold up in a court of law?
Surely you have a list of isomorphic instances wherein something like this happened before (I believe the term I'm looking for is "precedent", but I'm not a lawyer). Care to share it with the class, or are you just spouting a baseless opinion?
Perhaps the Americans are just sore that their whole Automobile industry is going to Hell in a hand basket, and so feel compelled to throw slurs around regarding truly great engineering which, coincidentally, isn't suffering from the recession. *shrug* Karma be damned.
LOL Americans invented all those things, huh? Where to begin?
Radio waves were discovered by Maxwell, a Scottish mathematician and theoretical physicist
The cathode ray (as in the TV) was invented by an English chemist and physicist by the name of Faraday.
America and Russia 'stole' the German scientist behind the V2 project to staff their nascent space/rocket programs, so I would hardly give America any credit whatsoever.
A French inventor (Cugnot) is credited with inventing the automobile.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (of Iraq) invented the camera.
The preceding all came directly from wikipedia, you're welcome to check this out for yourself. At best I'd give America credit for the internet.
Pretty clever, sir/madam, but wouldn't your ions that you're propelling toward the asteroid (or what have you) to keep the ship and asteroid from colliding also hit said object, putting it back in its original vector? I'd say just nuke it to be sure, but I'm a sucker for fireworks.
While my anecdote didn't take place in Iraq, two of my units actively encouraged (one even made it mandatory) to utilize paintball for urban ops training. Good times to be had, I'm sure, and it really emphasized the need for constant communications - I probably don't have to explain why. Whoops!;)
It wasn't an underground lair, it was a valley that was tucked away in the mountains hidden by a super squirrel secret stealth/cloaking field. You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand.;-)
What does an underground lair have to do with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? To feed the meme gremlins: you should probably pick up an Intro To Ayn Rand book before rejoining.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it by your ad hominem that you admit that you're merely trolling for an argument. If this is not the case then provide justification for your view.
...or are you someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, mistaken for consorting and aiding terrorists of a foreign country by another foreign country's occupational force? We'll never know without a fair trail.
Without a trail, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused of being a 'terrorist' was actually acting in such a capacity, the label thereof is no more convincing than just calling someone a witch back in the 1800s (or whenever that was the scapegoat label de jour) and burning them at the stake. Granted, now we just torture and incarcerate them indefinitely on a plot of land legally owned (Cuba doesn't accept the rent money, after all) by a country that the USA still won't trade with, nor allow entry into by its own citizens, which is rather convenient if you ask me.
Here's an idea: The UN formed Israel, so it should be fairly easy to sway the UN to protect their invention. If I were the President/Prime_Minister/Chancellor of Israel I would petition the UN to swear to defend her the next time someone declares war on her for no more than ideological or religious reasons. Also, I would make use of the supposedly competent secret service (the mossad) to stop the pathetic mosquito (rocket/mortar) attacks that were plaguing her. As always: use the right tool for the right job. I contend that it should not take a full scale symmetrical war to stop a few supposedly rogue military elements from firing a few occasional rockets into Israel, so when they invoked such clearly (IMO) overbearing measures the impression anyone should walk away with is "they're making a power play".
When you start firebombing (whole) cities you open yourself up to the possibility of reprisal, for after all the (seemingly childish but effective) "they started" justification would exist. At that point all the gloves come off, and the global political opinion will contend that the enemy can do whatever he wants in retaliation, for you have just demonstrated that you have no respect for the sanctity of the civilian population, who in this case had no idea that their leader was going to invade their neighbors (etc) when they allowed him to come to power. Not to mention that by the time he was in power, there was no real way to remove him from it (there's a movie about one of *many* such attempts to 'impeach' him that just recently came out, after all - admittedly an attempt that probably came all too late). It is no leap of logic to claim that those millions of civilians that were bombed out of existence during the raids on German cities were in fact INNOCENT.
You made some hasty claim indicating that if your city was bombed non-stop you'd want to reconsider your choice in leaders. I've already mentioned that it wasn't a choice available to any of them at that point in time. Furthermore, how do you dispose of a leader when you and millions of your neighbors are turned into 'crispy critters' as you so eloquently put it?
To answer your original question: Had I been the Prime Minister of Britain when it became evident that Germany would completely crush my pathetic little island nation (who, incidentally, declared war on Germany), then I would NOT show such a complete disregard for civilian lives for the reasons stated above (reprisal, global political backlash, etc). Rather, the strategy I would have employed would have been to seek out a peaceful resolution to the war which my nation had declared (to 'cut my loses', if you will). If that failed, I would have petitioned my allies for further assistance. If that failed, I would have accepted defeat, realizing that like Rome (the previous Reich), Germany would have eventually tired itself out, and that it was probably easier at that juncture to defeat them from the inside; once the zeal of having defeated my inherently inferior aggressive island nation had waned.
This is definitely on the mark, for physics started out as 'natural philosophy'. However, the more accurate description of what Plato meant is that we are only indirectly observing/sampling reality in that we see the effects (light reflection, the effects in atmospheric pressure [sound], etc) of external objects. The hologram theory fails because:
If the universe were a hologram as devised by intersecting lasers from the 'edge of the universe' (sphere of visible universe) then you'd run into a number of problems.
An extraordinarily easy way to test this: go into a room without windows (basement for instance) and turn on a light. No external light source should be able to penetrate the walls to illuminate the room, and yet light is still possible within this context. Obviously the world isn't a giant hologram.
Also: you'd run into problems illuminating objects close to planets and other large objects, especially with other objects flying ~ overhead. Given our understanding of light, you'd at least see color warping in situations like that. Yet we don't. While things might dim a little bit, artificial light still works even here.
Furthermore: How would you 'draw'/'render' an individual photon? A photon isn't perceptible save from the direction in which it is traveling. Holograms project an image 360^2 degrees (in a 3 dimensional array).
Now on to the experiment itself:
Reasons for slight differences in the output of the laser 'spacetime' ruler: possible angles for escaping concentrated light out of the optical resonator (laser) > 1, therefore there could be slight delays (as the angle of escaping light increases and decreases) in light emission, which would temporarily jolt the output on the end of the 600 metre course. I'm surprised to see people (especially with those credentials) still assuming that lased light is 1 photon across (on the X and Y planes). This further supports my assumption that modern-day physics is a form of sobriety/IQ/etc test.
Another easy explanation: atmosphere has a slight refractive index. See: Gravitational Lensing && Faraday Experiment. Unless all atmosphere was completely evacuated from the confines of the experiment, and it was conducted in a zero gravity environment, it is perfectly reasonable to expect differing output from it. Factor in the non-perfectly-concentrated light output of laser light and it would be extraordinary if *no* differences in output were observed.
You're probably right, however the chances of that are pretty slim. They'd have to have a deviation in the anatomy of their eye, their occipital lobe, different definition of colors (different words for the same 'sensuous intuition' as per Kant), and so on; all of which are rather unlikely, especially given the forum that we're discussing this on. Not to mention: what fun would being all humble all the time be? ;)
I probably didn't phrase this properly. What I meant to say is that:
relativistic mass = invariant mass + effect_of_relative_speed(invariant_mass)
Now, if photons have invariant mass then it stands to reason that we should be able to work our way backwards from this equation to derive $invariant_mass for the photon. Seeing as how the momentum they conserve is finite, one would naturally expect that the rest mass of a photon follows suit (viz. that it has finite rest mass).
I guess it all depends on how accurate/deep/etc you want to be when discussing these things. The sky can be said to be blue, just like an object can. What this ($foo is blue) interprets to is what 'wavelengths' of light they reflect or refract. So even though this property can typically only be sampled (observed) indirectly via light, it can still be said to be a property of the object(s) being described, for it is this property that alters the light. (form = function)
Unless I'm completely off the mark, in which case please feel free to ignore or correct me.
By that logic a "blue" wall/$anything_sans_light isn't blue either, but rather the light which it reflects is blue.
So you're saying that light has relativistic mass? When you start off with zero mass, how does it increase to positive mass by increasing velocity? 0 + (0*1) is still 0 (this is overly simplified, but you get the point).
Do you ever notice how 'Yiddish' is just German but with Americanized spellings? So anyway, I was wondering what you actually wrote. Alle zehn (10) sollen dier 'rause fallen. [All ten (10) should fall out.] Nicht einer sohl dier bleiben. [Not one should remain to you.] (Last sentence was idiomatic, I presume). Furthermore: ____ sohl er vern in a hangegleiter, bei Tag sohl er hengen, und bei Nacht sohl er brennen. [___ he should far in a hang-glider, by day he should hang(glide), and by night he should burn.]
That is some crazy stuff. I'd like to know what you actually meant to say.
How are documents stored on Google docs vulnerable, beyond being stored on other machines whose operators can at will look at them (locally)?
What about if you electronically sign a document describing your idea in detail, via PGP/GPG? This includes a timestamp as well, but does it hold up in a court of law?
Surely you have a list of isomorphic instances wherein something like this happened before (I believe the term I'm looking for is "precedent", but I'm not a lawyer). Care to share it with the class, or are you just spouting a baseless opinion?
I applaud your good taste. Perhaps it's because I haven't seen the original series, but I for one love BSG. Keep 'em coming!
I like the way you think. You're definitely hired.
Who wants to join me in starting a Terrorist Insurance business? Sounds like we'd make tons of free money.
Perhaps the Americans are just sore that their whole Automobile industry is going to Hell in a hand basket, and so feel compelled to throw slurs around regarding truly great engineering which, coincidentally, isn't suffering from the recession. *shrug* Karma be damned.
That's rather sexy. If you ever grow bored of it, let me know.
LOL Americans invented all those things, huh? Where to begin?
Radio waves were discovered by Maxwell, a Scottish mathematician and theoretical physicist
The cathode ray (as in the TV) was invented by an English chemist and physicist by the name of Faraday.
America and Russia 'stole' the German scientist behind the V2 project to staff their nascent space/rocket programs, so I would hardly give America any credit whatsoever.
A French inventor (Cugnot) is credited with inventing the automobile.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) (of Iraq) invented the camera.
The preceding all came directly from wikipedia, you're welcome to check this out for yourself. At best I'd give America credit for the internet.
Pretty clever, sir/madam, but wouldn't your ions that you're propelling toward the asteroid (or what have you) to keep the ship and asteroid from colliding also hit said object, putting it back in its original vector? I'd say just nuke it to be sure, but I'm a sucker for fireworks.
While my anecdote didn't take place in Iraq, two of my units actively encouraged (one even made it mandatory) to utilize paintball for urban ops training. Good times to be had, I'm sure, and it really emphasized the need for constant communications - I probably don't have to explain why. Whoops! ;)
It wasn't an underground lair, it was a valley that was tucked away in the mountains hidden by a super squirrel secret stealth/cloaking field. You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand. ;-)
I'm hurt and deeply offended by your comment. You should be able to say anything without (governmental) consequence. Police: Arrest this man! ;-)
What does an underground lair have to do with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? To feed the meme gremlins: you should probably pick up an Intro To Ayn Rand book before rejoining.