andie holland

Even in the Middle Ages there were gurls such as me who would devise observational experiments to show that bigger is not faster. For example, heavy piece of plaster-board vs a small stone.... In other words, the tension between First Philosophy (abstract-conceptual) and Second Philosophy (First, observe!) has been around since the time of Ancient Greece. For example, Euclid was really a 'how-to sort of guy who absolutely hated the term 'axiom' as applied to his work in geometry.

The origin of Hamas-- with its radical solution of wiping the zinonist entity off the face of the earth-is obvious. it's all about the failure of moderates to force the zionists back to pre-1967 borders. In other words, the occupation of the West Bank. This natural tendency towards extreme measures in the face of the failure of moderation is also present in American History, as well, with the Revolution and the Civil War. Hamas has gained sympathy not only within the Islamic world but also that of Western democracies because it's now widely understood that the zionist entity was never serious about withdrawing in the first place. Again, the process since 1967 has been a sham delaying tactic to ensure more and more settlement. This is what zionists have called 'on the ground reality': we'll negotiate peacemeal with respect to a developing reality of increased settlement. The Palestinian response is to rocket the settlements. Far from 'genocide', it's a simple measure to say that if you were not occupying our land to begin with, you wouldn't be at risk from the rockets falling on Palestinian land.

You apparently have misunderstood your Wiki. * 'FRW is correctly written to include Lemaitre, or 'FLRW' ** As such, FLRW is not a 'theory' of gravity;, but rather the accepted basis for Big Bang. In other words, whatever you might be trying to say--and however you might be confused-- FLRW would be relevant to the conversation if and only if the arrow in question were somehow caught up in a Big Bang event. Otherwise, we're talking about fundamental GR which is, again, our only theory of gravity. *** It's more correctly called a 'metric' because it gives all of the possibilities of expansion, with respect to the initial force and the counter-force of the gravity which The Bang created. **** As a metric, it offers three general possibilities of outcome, which are the potential shapes of the universe: positive curvature, negative curvature, and none. This is what you confused as 'gravity'. ***** the 'theory' would be the arrival at the correct shape by means of measurement. Here, we refer to deSitter's elaboration of a flat model. ****** Ricci is used in the FLRW as a part of the Riemann tensor that's derived as a product of the Einsteinian and the metric tensor. This makes it a rather exotic fourth-order derivative. As such, it expresses the potential curvatures of the created gravitational field against the expansion from Big Bang. To this extent, FLRW obviously includes extrapolated parts of GR. ******* Otherwise, the Ricci in the basic Einsteinian is a basic second order. Arrows flying into a gravitational field will curve, just like anything else. What's important on a basic high-school level (yours) is that there is no place within the real universe in which arrows, or anything else, will exhibit the complete inertia that would not eventually curve back to its origin. ******** In terms of cosmology, what's interesting about the development of FLRW is that the equations now take us beyond the zero, to a time before the Big Bang. That's why it still serves as the basis for all Big Bang cosmology, as taught, for the last fifty years or so. In other words, you seriously misunderstood some really basic stuff; so you get an F. As for myself, i like to paraphrase the film 'Quigley Down Under': "I said that I really didn't like Physics enough to have gone on to do a doctorate. But i never said that i wasn't good at it." In this respect, you boorishly assumed that my admittedly 'few courses as an undergrad' were of the introductory sort that you might have taken yourself--ostensibly sufficient to have misunderstood Wiki, as it were. Well, not. Because i could understand the math (high tester) and was 'pushed' into science by two academic parents, my 400 level stuff was complete by 11th grade. 'Did grad level QM in college as electives. 'Rather boring, actually, because the theory is real easy. Either you know how to plug in the numbers derived from an understanding of the math, or not. 'No more of a skill than. say, learning a musical instrument, or singing, neither of which i can do. My love is the Linguistics of Spanish lit. Here i can use my math to derive refined models of lexiostatistics and glottochronology. How 800 AD Arabic poetry infused itself into modern Spanish poetry is, for me far more interesting than arrows flying through Hilbert Space with possible negative and positive curvatures, etc...

Please post the article and I'll be happy to read it; I'm unable to access OL.

Yes, corruption and favoritism is always an issue. There's far more in Somalia than in Sweden, whereas Spain and USA fall somewhere in the middle. So if in the next American elections it isn't, that's too bad, because it should be. Failure to regulate is not a viable reason to eliminate regulation. Parenthetically, permitting kids to sell lemonade w/o a licence is 'corruption', too, because it means they--unlike the far larger adult companies, pay no taxes. As for Atlas, the story loops around the real history of American capital in the so-called 'gilded age', Chilean copper mines notwithstanding. Large industrialists and bankers were given cheep land and huge credits by the government which, in effect was practicing triage to obtain an oligopolistic means of production fit to a large scale-- that could compete with European industry. Fine. This is what is called 'state capitalism', a partnership. What's disgusting is how the benefactors--boorish low-rents such as Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al, took all the credit under the name of 'free' enter-prize and 'inititive'. A complete lie. With the notable exception of Ford, workers failed to benefit, thereby requiring the government to intervene, based upon its own role in the economic boom caused by large-scale industrialization.

You write as if there's more than one 'gravitational model ("many such cosmological models"!!!)...hilarious. So please, tell me about them because my poor college courses only taught one,the Newtionian, which was proven false by GR. As for the equation, it's the 'R' (Ricci) on the left side which describes the natural curvature of space with respect to several other coefficients. To this extent, the trajectory of said arrow in real space will never be straight--ostensibly the only state in which it would not return. Think about walking on the earth's surface. Now make the assumption that the surface is flat....

The red-line is that of Varo; the thread is about explaining what he meant. To the extent that you feel it's nonsense, go take it up with him. Otherwise, it's rather clear that you don't understand Kant.

let's just agree to disagree about the extent to which the shock blast of ordnance kills at a distance far greater than the specs--which are about assured radians of destruction. Moreover most accounts that i've read of Gaza indicate that tere is no place within that's 100m safe. In short, i'd call any zionist a liar to his/her face (including that bimbo Natalie Portman) who claims that their state-entity is not waging systemic genocide of the type that Rand approved of as the befitting fate of the lower evolved. Hamas knows it can;t win. Rather, it's aim is to provoke the rest of the Arab world to commit itself, and let the rest stand as sympathetic. 'Palestine' was a entity under the Ottoman Empire. Then prior, Palestine was a part of the Mameluk Dynasty of Egypt, prior to that the Byzantine, then the Roman, then the Alexandrain, then the Persian, then the Assyrio-Babylonian, which takes us back to 800BC. We derive the word from 'Philistine' which is even cited in the Old Testament s events of 1000BC. Archaeology indicates dwellings art An'natuf going back to 20,000 BC. Yet the zionists claim a right to seize the land because they did not have their own state. Small wonder they're hated by anyone who doesn't consider the movee 'Exodus real history,

With all due respect, you have every right to justify your strong sentiments by publishing what made you so angry. Otherwise, Marxists are such because they believe in precisely what you assert no longer exists: exploitation based upon class. Moreover, the dynamic they 'see' is a shrinking of the middle class back into the proletariat. To this end, Piketty labeled his work after Marx--"Capital in the 21st Century", although his own analysis is somewhat different. Owners of the means of production increase inequality because they pull their own profit out prior to increasing production itself--the basis of increasing salaries for workers. Here, the solution is different than that of Marx: simply tax profits to ensure a fair distribution of production.

The major problem with your first statement is that you assume to be the only possessor of said moral laws; in reality, this particular is open to the same genre of public debate that gives us democracy in the first place. Freely translated: everyone who's even half smart can make their own pov seem 'philosophical' by using the word 'moral'. It's as good as putting lipstick on a pig or saying, "Look Mom, I'm talking philosophy (weeee.....)"!! In other words, 'social justice' is justice that's arrived at through discursive practice with those who would openly challenge your ideas. Yes, even Aristotle said that markets were 'natural'. It simply means that exchange rates are a matter of haggling, not fixed by custom or need. This is always an alternative within the species homo sapiens, and is done in some measure by everyone. This is not the same as saying marketing is an economic 'law'. Rather, what is is to say that markets broadly conform to either 'Say's Law, Marshall's Supply and Demand, Jevonian Marginal Utility, Veblin's status consumption (S/D inverted), Nash equilibrium, Pareto Opthomality, Euler's Theorem (Krugman), Rational expectations, information a- symmetry ......none of which are like 'gravity'. What Aristotle also said, however, was that everywhere markets were under control or sanction.. for example, in his time, you could haggle (kapeleke) only at a certain place (Agora), time, price, and licensed content. For example, since Athens overproduced pottery, it was sold at a subsidized price to keep potters pottering. Lemonade stands run by children continue to be treated with non-licensed indulgence to the day arsenic is discovered within, or that said stands serve as a front for the local teenage drug pushers.

Boldfacing 'never' and saying that I need 'simple' terms only emphasizes the thin quality of your conjecture, as if you were gazing into a plastic crystal ball made for children, In Wallmart. Americans may or may not see inequality as an issue.

Reality bends to people's whims to the extent that whims effect outcomes. In other words, if people believe enough that inequality is an issue, they'll vote for a party that promises more equality, ostensibly by taxing wealth and redistribution.

In terms of QM, a basketball is not, as you claim, a 'complex system of interacting particles'. Rather, for de Broglie's equation, it's nothing but a wave function. i believe that I detailed this in my last post. Likewise, subatomic particles do not tunnel. The expression was/is limited to quanta, or photons. In other words, the science is easy to understand, the math difficult, and the probability real, but tiny.

Whether you're 'trying' to understand GR is beside the point, because it's not about you. Rather it's about Gr being the explanation of record of movement on a cosmological scale.

The objective way we validate the finite-ness of the universe is through basic astronomy.

My post explained why Vara would cite Kant. As to whether or not the country is 'really' poor, feel free to take your discussion and argument to Vara himself. Yet what everyone agrees to is that Greece no longer has a functioning banking system, and must be given injections of cash in order to become a lender, which is what banks are 'spozed to do. It's otherwise clear to most of us that banks are necessary--therefore, their lack thereof would create poverty ipso facto.

Kindly post your blog-response for discussion, here. I did just read it, but would like to comment only on ta text that's viewed by everyone. You also failed to give a reason for your strong 'hatred'.

Without curved space you cannot understand General Relativity. This curvature predicts that javelins will always return to the source from which it was thrown.

Your particular de Broglie? Boem came much later, in the 60's, as a response to Bell's Inequality: do photons exhibit a predictable direction of spin, and if so, why? For example, Einsteins's was called "EPR', or the missing glove. Theirs was the 'pilot' theory in which the first photon guided the others in a sequence by creating a sort of blocking that would make the next swerve in the opposite direction (polarization). Yet both were proven wrong by Aspect's experiments. which vindicated Bohr--communication at infinite speed. First de Broglie, circa 1935, was the reductability of all matter to a wave function (energy). At the most basic level, all is quanta. T;here are not two worlds; rather, it only appears that way because we like to think in 'materialist' terms for convenience.

Yes.

At least my own QM class was not taught by a 'journalist'. Neither is the de Broglie Equation considered 'pseudoscience' within the context of QM by its instructors. Moreover, it's more or less understood that the basketball analogy began with Feynman in his affirmative refereeing of Josephson's claim against Bardeen that tunneling explains how photons can penetrate an electron shield. In any case, the concepts and reasoning of de Broglie are simple, although the math is quite difficult: Given * the Einsteinian of SR allows for all matter to be expressed as energy, and vice-versa, **The Heisenberg (per Gamow) allows for photons to travel at nearly infinite speed *** The conversion of mass to energy is done at its rest state with respect to the wall **** But the conversion to energy for the basketball is done at its potential ***** That said near-infinite potentials are real probabilities, albeit small. ***** What we call mass is, in any case, 999999% empty space Therefore, toss the ball at the wall enough times and it will eventually pass thru. This principle, BTW, explains how stars create energy--not by gravitational compression.

'Subatomic' is the only word, as 'microscopic' is simply incorrect. Otherwise, in a standard nuclear reaction,there is a conversion of mass to energy because that's how 'nuclear fusion and fission work. Antimatter has nothing to do with the process.

You wrote: Microscopic matter (protons, electrons) cannot pop itself into energy. First, electrons and protons (neutrons?) are not 'microscopic' because the word means 'observable with a microscope'. Meitner, working with Einstein's formulation for Special Relativity, derived the breakdown chain of U-238 to U235 by demonstrating that the created energy is a result of a loss of mass. Otherwise, the equation doesn't work. This is precisely the basis of what we now call 'nuclear energy'. As far as 'popping itself' into any observable state, yes, arguably, electrons, protons and neutrons, having no volition of their own, require a catalyst.

The universe is not infinite.

Because you accuse my post of rants, I'm saying that you're really not that bright. So I'll keep it reeeel simple:If you want to do business, you have to obtain a license. his includes corporations, who are chartered by each state. States, cities, counties, and nations also control what might be marketed. Now i realize that this is perhaps a bit over your head, but...Aristotle wrote that because humans are essentially zoon politikon (political animals), their natural tendency is to work out set, conventional agreements as to both exchange rates of labor against finished goods and distribution, or 'matadosis'. Only excess and non essentials were to be sold at market value, or kapelike. This is the way that humans have lived for most of its history. lastly, your recourse to saying that 'I'm the only one who feels this way' is pure playground twaddle.