1
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 12:13:12 »
And it will break NATO
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 12:11:42 »
You need to see one thing more. Any use a of nuclear to solve a unwinnable war will be a instant genocide. labeling the country choosing it as a traitor to humanity. It's a very stupid thing to do.
3
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 11:38:12 »
Of course it's hubris, combined with a blatant lack of humanity. It's what you voted up, it's what you want.
You think you can change?
You think you can change?
4
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 11:36:36 »
It's not going to get any better either. Not with the way environmental crisis's builds up due to global warming, scarcity of water and topsoil, seasons changing, floods and droughts, small arm wars, etc etc. The temptation to make one 'small' nuclear 'stand' in a otherwise unwinnable war will build up. maybe not this time, but the next.
5
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 11:28:40 »
And the results of that?
Welcome to a new way of warfare.
Welcome to a new way of warfare.
6
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 11:27:26 »
As a result Sweden was unable to defend its own policy on the use of nuclear recently. It's hidden by a lot of formalistic sentences discussing what it would mean practically but as we now, more or less, joined NATO it becomes harder and harder to hold a own policy when it comes to nuclear armaments. It's geopolitics and as we say in Sweden 'real politik' that defines it.
=
Real politik= 'Realistic politics'
=
Real politik= 'Realistic politics'
7
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: Yesterday at 11:15:46 »
I think there are clear trends. One of them is the idea of 'smart' small nuclear devices. That's USA, Russia still use the idea of overwhelming force as far as I've read, including nuclear. That doesn't mean that they aren't prepared to use small nuclear devices but as a guess they will let USA take the first step there. What it will do the rest of the world, especially those Country's that refused to build their own, as Sweden? Mr Trump is quite close to open Pandora's box with his intentions on Iran, because that's definitely a unwinnable war conventionally.
" This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance
of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and it provides considerations
for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational
forces, and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise
of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs), and
prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use
by the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and orders. It is not the intent
of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and
executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort
in the accomplishment of objectives. "
" Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict." from " Nuclear Operations" https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf
One ugly trend.
Then we have oil pipes and gas pipes. If you want check upon that I would suggest http://ggon.org/fossil-tracker/
It's like taking a look on the CO2 rising, you just need to do it once a year to know the state of affairs there. The rest of it is BS in my eyes, as long as nothing is done practically to change the outcome. https://time.com/5588794/carbon-dioxide-earth-climate-change/#
" This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance
of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and it provides considerations
for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational
forces, and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise
of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs), and
prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use
by the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and orders. It is not the intent
of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and
executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort
in the accomplishment of objectives. "
" Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict." from " Nuclear Operations" https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_72.pdf
One ugly trend.
Then we have oil pipes and gas pipes. If you want check upon that I would suggest http://ggon.org/fossil-tracker/
It's like taking a look on the CO2 rising, you just need to do it once a year to know the state of affairs there. The rest of it is BS in my eyes, as long as nothing is done practically to change the outcome. https://time.com/5588794/carbon-dioxide-earth-climate-change/#
8
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: 17/08/2019 17:04:18 »
The kind of stuff we don't want to know :)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish
9
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the most profound quest in all of physics the "Theory of Everything"?
« on: 17/08/2019 16:38:07 »
As for a TOE?
Maybe it's relative :)
Maybe it's relative :)
10
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the most profound quest in all of physics the "Theory of Everything"?
« on: 17/08/2019 16:35:16 »
I don't know. I wouldn't like to put a God to the questions asked at the Nuremberg trials. I find us unable to understand ourselves, and if that is made into the image of a God? Nah, that kind of God is no good.
11
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can a tensor be represented as a group of “connected” vectors?
« on: 17/08/2019 16:24:44 »
Richard, where do you get out from?
A global representation or a local?
A global representation or a local?
13
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe?
« on: 17/08/2019 15:26:46 »
I'll go with Sean and Collin :)
It was there, we can 'see' it looking back. But that doesn't tell us any more than that was when time started to 'tick', for us
13.7 (8) billions years ago, which may change :)
Time is a very strange idea.
It was there, we can 'see' it looking back. But that doesn't tell us any more than that was when time started to 'tick', for us
13.7 (8) billions years ago, which may change :)
Time is a very strange idea.
14
New Theories / Re: Can You Pass This Test?
« on: 17/08/2019 15:06:11 »
get me right Mike. Give me a mathematical proof out from locality, incorporating relativity, that covers it. I think we need it.
15
General Science / Re: What if it was possible to stop time?
« on: 17/08/2019 12:15:14 »
no, it doesn't matter if time is a flow or 'instants'. You would perceive it the same, I know no experiment that would prove time to 'stop'.
16
General Science / Re: Get real SPAM and a ban FOR FREE!
« on: 17/08/2019 12:10:30 »
https://www.passportindex.org/byRank.php#
That's about what countries one can travel to depending on what passport one 'use' :)
Modern passports will use biometrics. https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-biometric-passport.htm which should be very hard to forge presuming they use the right technology.
And how they do it? It depends on how hard they are to forge. https://www.vocativ.com/news/241487/fake-passport-prices-black-market/index.html
With a biometric it won't help to change the photo etc.
That's about what countries one can travel to depending on what passport one 'use' :)
Modern passports will use biometrics. https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-biometric-passport.htm which should be very hard to forge presuming they use the right technology.
And how they do it? It depends on how hard they are to forge. https://www.vocativ.com/news/241487/fake-passport-prices-black-market/index.html
With a biometric it won't help to change the photo etc.
17
New Theories / Re: Can You Pass This Test?
« on: 17/08/2019 10:41:33 »
It seems to me that if there exist 'instants' one then will need to refer to them as some sort of 'quanta' of time? It's also so that even though you locally can define a clock that doesn't 'lie' to you, you can't define those time intervals as a 'global standard'. Not if you go by main stream definitions anyway. We do use standards as the cm or the second and expect them to be the same locally defined, no matter ones relative motion, but I don't think the same will hold in a acceleration.
=
Actually hose standards seems questionable even in a uniform motion to me. What it could be seen to build on is the idea of there being no way to differ a uniform 'relative' motion from being still, locally defined. But we have different uniform motions proof able, and with it we must have LorentzFitzgerald contractions and time dilation's. To change that you need to change the way we define a universe, making all local definitions equivalent. If you can do that I would be very interested.
=
Actually hose standards seems questionable even in a uniform motion to me. What it could be seen to build on is the idea of there being no way to differ a uniform 'relative' motion from being still, locally defined. But we have different uniform motions proof able, and with it we must have LorentzFitzgerald contractions and time dilation's. To change that you need to change the way we define a universe, making all local definitions equivalent. If you can do that I would be very interested.
18
New Theories / Re: Can You Pass This Test?
« on: 17/08/2019 09:20:29 »
No Mike :)
I haven't taken your test. It's not a test, it's an idea, or a formula, building on a assumption of there existing 'instants' of acceleration in where you can treat those instants as being non accelerating as I read you. " Even though the frame of the traveling twin, since he accelerates during some portion his trip, cannot be an inertial frame, there is, at each instant tof the traveler's life, a unique inertial frame which is momentarily stationary with respect to the traveler at that instant, with a spatial axis pointing in the same direction as the home-twin's spatial axis, and such that the traveler is located at the spatial origin of that frame at that instant."
I'm not saying you can't think that way, but the whole idea of inertial frames seems rather difficult practically to me.
I haven't taken your test. It's not a test, it's an idea, or a formula, building on a assumption of there existing 'instants' of acceleration in where you can treat those instants as being non accelerating as I read you. " Even though the frame of the traveling twin, since he accelerates during some portion his trip, cannot be an inertial frame, there is, at each instant tof the traveler's life, a unique inertial frame which is momentarily stationary with respect to the traveler at that instant, with a spatial axis pointing in the same direction as the home-twin's spatial axis, and such that the traveler is located at the spatial origin of that frame at that instant."
I'm not saying you can't think that way, but the whole idea of inertial frames seems rather difficult practically to me.
19
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: 17/08/2019 08:53:46 »
What I'm trying to say is that 'vulgar Darwinism' will lead nowhere, it's just not true.
20
New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« on: 17/08/2019 08:51:02 »
In the first mindset where the end justify the means you should count in those manipulating global warming and environmentalism for their own purposes. suggesting for example that underdeveloped countries are to blame as they make too many kids. If you look at your own country I'm sure you will find a rapid decline in births between 1800 to now. That's not because your country was better equipped to understand overpopulation and somehow could see what it would lead to. That's just a effect any industrialized society have if you look at birth rates for them. It also connect to what safety net exist around a society, as a lot of kids was a sort of insurance against old age with a lot of them dying before reaching a age where they could support their parents. You can also connect it to religious teachings, and then look at your own country's population. How many of them share those old fashioned beliefs today?
=
syntax
=
syntax