AlexL

Your insert "[linear]" suggested to me, maybe mistakenly, classical mechanics (vs relativistic); I didn't perceive it as "vs. angular". PS: Standard terminology: conservation of angular momentum is the consequence of the isotropy of the space, of the invariance under rotations, of the Lagrangian, for example.

Yes, I added "and time" because in the previous paragraph I was mentioning both non-relativistic and relativistic case. You quoted me: but the insertion "[linear was yours]". My two paragraphs: are thus correct and consistent. I believe the misunderstanding is thus solved. The main point, the e.m. field being necessary for the conservation of momentum - I hope @Bill Hobbawill explain his thoughts.

Hoover Institution, Uncommon Knowledge Host: Peter Robinson Guest: Stephen Kotkin, historian Subject: "A Historian of the Future: Five More Questions for Stephen Kotkin" Questions: What are we doing in Ukraine? 1:35 How will this [Ukraine war] end? 23:02 Taiwan 51:51 Are there still high-profile US politicians as there were before? 1:08:17 Is the 21st century going to be The American Century, as the 20th was? 1:24:54 For @whYNOT: <sarcasm>This Kotkin is another victim of the Western totalitarian media propaganda</sarcasm>

Intriguing... Just a question of detail: Can you please elaborate - at any level you feel comfortable with? I am surprised because, in classical mechanics at least, the total 3-momentum of a system is conserved (in the absence of external forces/fields), whatever the internal interactions are, that is with or without the electromagnetic fields. And this holds also for the relativistic 4-momentum. In both cases, the conservation of momentum follows from the translation invariance, that is from the homogeneity of space (and time)... Did Wigner imply that without the existence of the e.m. interaction the translation invariance would break ??? That, IOW, the existence of the e.m. interaction can be deduced from the premise of translation invariance?

Yes, that could be a reasonable cover story [...] Yes, @Doug Morris, your hypothesis is the simplest one. Indeed, in 2014 Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea and parts of the Donbass region. Under these circumstances, when one of the guarantors of Ukraine territorial integrity violated it, Ukraine asked for military help. Which is not only morally legitimate, but also clearly allowed by the Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Unfortunately, Ukraine received very little help before February 2022 and was on the brink of collapse in March 2022. @whYNOTnever presented verified facts that contradict this hypothesis. And never will. He has truly "turned to the dark side" in politics (© @dream_weaver) and rational debate, on the subject of the Russia/Ukraine conflict ☹️

Rejected in the West for Lugansk and Donetsk? Do you have a link? You don't. But maybe you can imagine what could have been the reason? Maybe because LNR/DNR cannot invoke Art. 51? Eh, clever boy? You never read Art. 51, or never understood it. Here it is, again: Have you read it? And understood? Have you noticed "armed attack against a Member of the United Nations"? Nobody recognized the self-proclaimed LNR/DNR; they are not UN members. You believe this is a purely formal objection and/or simply an oversight of the UN charter? Think again! Without the need to be an UN member, that is an already recognized state, anyone could proclaim independence of a region and then ask for help - including from precisely the foreign government which stirred up the "independence" movement (with or without the intention to later absorb it)! For example "LNR/DNR" asking help from Russia. [The lack of moral legitimacy of the UN itself, while being true, has nothing to do with the subject, which was your claim of double standards - "Rules for me but not for you"] So yes, Ukraine can legitimately invoke Art. 51 when asking for help against the invader, but "LNR/DNR" cannot, and rightly so, both morally and legally. Learn to read carefully and also to think by yourself!

That's something of an m. o. by Israel, to sneak in controversial items through minor channels. Maybe, you don't know that Mossad did provide these figures to this obscure Turkish publication. IOW, you DON'T have a better source for these Mossad figures. This is just another claim you cannot prove and only litter this Objectivism forum. The above is sufficient ground for readers to ignore the matter. However, there is a Fact Check by Newsweek which concludes, after a lengthy analysis, that : [the information is] Unverified. The figures quoted [for casualties]... come from a Turkish website that does not link to its sources, nor does it provide any other authenticated evidence. The claim that it received its data from Israeli security services is also highly dubious.

Yes, that could be a reasonable cover story [...] Yes, @Doug Morris, your hypothesis is the simplest one. Indeed, in 2014 Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea and parts of the Donbass region. Under these circumstances, when one of the guarantors of Ukraine territorial integrity violated it, Ukraine asked for military help. Which is not only morally legitimate, but also clearly allowed by the Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Unfortunately, Ukraine received very little help before February 2022 and was on the brink of collapse in March 2022. @whYNOTnever presented verified facts that contradict this hypothesis. And never will. He has truly "turned to the dark side" in politics and rational debate, on the subject of the Russia/Ukraine conflict ☹️

I don't really know... M. Bunge has multivolume Treatise on Basic Philosophy, of which three have the word Epistemology in their titles: Vol. V: Epistemology and Methodology I: Exploring the World. Vol. VI: Epistemology and Methodology II: Understanding the World. Vol. VII: Epistemology and Methodology III: Philosophy of Science and Technology: Part I. Formal and Physical Sciences Part II. Life Science, Social Science and Technology See Wiki for the structure of this Treatise. I have some of these, as well as some other volumes from the Treatise in electronic format. Try to browse them and see if it is what you are looking for...

I recommend you : Mario Bunge, Philosophy of Physics, 1973 (found in any scientific library, I hope). You might be interested to check his approach which he explains in detail. You may find on Google Books fragments for a first impression. PS: I see that Google Books offers only random fragments, not always from the beginning... If you are interested, I can borrow you the full book in electronic format.

Site " 1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, 20 February 2023 in Russian province, Morgaushi, 400 miles to East from Moscow. Theme: "Rural Russians explain why Russians protect the motherland in another country"

1. It is not Maria, but Mario Bunge 2. Your link is: https://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php? Nobody had heard of me.” Why this disparaging comment? ☹️

Welcome back ! If I understand correctly, your scientific background is mathematics and physics. Am I correct? Regarding philosophy of science, of physics especially, I usually warmly recommend Mario Bunge, a professional physicist and a professional philosopher, which is a rather rare combination. Is this name familiar to you?

«Hürseda Haber» is a Turkish source. Did Mossad communicate these figures to this Turkish publication only? IOW, do you have a better source for these Mossad figures?

OO. I think you are overreacting. As I said, I can also live with the status quo.

We can only save ourselves - by using reason. It's easy: can you give me references about the respective publications being propaganda sources/outlets of the government of one of the warring parties? OTOH, you may lookup Clare Daly's biography and see her affiliations - extreme left, anti-Capitalist, anti-West - and previous position statements[*] But beside Clare Daly's reputation, I also mentioned Seymour Hersh's bad track record as an investigator. I also mentioned that "the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence" is also an empty assumption, a partial lie at least. What about these? ------------------ [*] Before the 2022 Russian aggression, posted tweets and made statements in support of Putin's Russia. An example: in late January 2022, appearing on Russian TV (!), on the main governmental TV channel Rossiya 1, Daly described the Russian troop build up on the Ukrainian border as being "clearly defensive", and said there was no evidence that Russia had any desire to invade Ukraine. Which was exactly what Putin claimed at that time, months' and weeks before the invasion. However, on February 24, 2022 she condemned the invasion - but in very "balanced" terms. But she remained anti-US, anti-NATO and all that.

As indicated... 1. Your quote - "And post it (RT Links) approvingly on OO" - is inaccurate. I wrote: So that it is not about RT links, but about links to "Russian or Ukrainian governmental information" in general. Your name is in the hat automatically, I guess. Mine won't be there. I've already gave one of my reasons. BTW: do you mean OO-moderator or moderator for Ukraine threads ?

Seymour Hersh is a man with a bad track record. So is Clare Daly, the passionate lady denouncing Norway and USA [*]. And "the immense silence, the conspiracy of silence" is also an empty assumption, a partial lie at least. So: all this is hype, at least for the moment. ------ [*] Press titles: How the people's champions became tools of the Kremlin propaganda machine". Business Post. "How Clare Daly and Mick Wallace became stars of authoritarian state media". The Irish Times. "Putin's Willing Disinformation Agents". Byline Times.

... you go a little less extreme for some things, for example saying that RT is only acceptable to link in certain contexts. During a war between Russia and Ukraine it is stupid to rely on Russian or Ukrainian governmental information. And post it approvingly on OO. I already explained why: it might contain some truth, but one never knows where. And quoting specifically from RT is acceptable only when the subject is about what RT says on this or that😁

I did not claim that you did say that it was. What I said might be better expressed as: Hmph! What kind of propaganda site would that turn out to be? Why bother? It's hardly worth the effort. A pro-Putin propaganda site. I do bother. I explained why elsewhere. You don't seem to bother. No, not to justify the links. To justify the claims in the liked propaganda articles. I also stressed that during a conflict/war the governmental sources of the conflicted parties should be avoided as sources for facts and evaluations. But @whYNOTand a few others link to Russia's governmental sources, or to people that work for them. One should be aware that Russia spends billions for foreign propaganda and disinformation : in 2021 it is evaluated at 1.5 billion, for 2022 the indications are that it is substantially more. And this is only through the official outlets. There are also covert operations by agents of influence etc., a very old and well developed specialty started by the Soviet Russia 100 years ago.

My special interest in any topic I have interest in is to remain as objective as my knowledge and mental capacity allow me to. The notion of having no opinion and dispassionate neutrality flies in the face of what drew me to this philosophy. I was referring to your role as moderator. You should be fair to them, whatever their opinions. Fair in applying the Guidelines (augmented with specific rules of rational debate). Say it. About my remark "The participants in the Ukraine thread should not be involved in the moderation of this thread - conflict of interests.": Imagine me, the moderator, giving @whYNOTa warning for the fact that he repeatedly refuses MY insistence to justify his claims of fact. This is a highly unhealthy situation. If the participants here were really objectivists, or simply rational, this situation would not occur. But this is not the case. No need for an outside arbitrator. The problem is that you don't consider the above mentioned behavior of @whYNOTas irrational. Also, you don't you feel like moderating. He and some others transform this - Objectivism! - forum in a mouthpiece of propaganda by a dictatorship. You are mistaken: I was not and I am not seeking answers about the Russian/Ukrainian conflict. I was only reacting to fakes posted here on this subjects. I have both the knowledge of the relevant facts and the values to evaluate them. I don't need help with that. I posted a couple of contributions here. They needed effort to research, because I check every claim I make. None was interested. I offered to debunk some of falsehoods if someone is interested. None was. Then my approach of asking for justification for claims posted here is the most productive one: easier for me and it signals to OO readers possible fakes.

She says: 0:50 I don't know what happened but I want to know. This [Seymour Hersh] is a man who doesn't make claims lightly, a man with contacts [...] Why does she say she doesn't know what happened? She said a few seconds before that Seymour Hersh did find out exactly what happened - planed and executed by United States and Norway! Or one should realize that "the detailed claim he produced" is not the same as a "detailed proof" ? And that it's only a conjecture? Maybe also because Seymour Hersh is suspected of invoking too often anonymous sources, which means no verifiable information ?

And what is your answer? Has he turned to the dark side in politics? whYNOT shares only links to Russia Today and other outlets and "journalist" who work for the Russian government. The problem with this is the following: these sources are linked to one of the warring parties. And the war is also informational. And this is not abnormal. But the information coming from such sources is certainly distorted in some way: either incomplete, or one-sided, misrepresentations, outright lies... It may contain some true information, but one cannot know a priory what is what. One has to research in other sources anyway. Then... why bother at all with sources which are known to be contaminated ? The simple rule is: avoid governmental sources of parties in conflict ! Then there are professors and experts who "turned to the dark side in politics" - either conspiracists of various kinds or suspected of being simply payed by one of the party (they are, I believe, rather rare, but they do exist; Russia, in particular, is known to have spent, since the 1920s, dozens of billions of dollars on this). They can be identified by looking up the Internet and filtering intelligently the results. When one is above 30-40, one knows what sources are more and less reliable - if one has/had the right epistemology, that is the reflex of going by facts. And whYNOT shares exclusively the above mentioned kind of links. All coming from one direction and pointing in the same direction. Then: has he turned to the dark side - in politics? Should one ask him, maybe?

I'm saying that they aren't offenses that need to be acted upon through post deletion or anything like that, Deletion!? This is what one practices here?? This is rude as a first move. Why not something like reminders, warnings and such? For the type of validity I was talking about there is no need of elaborate demonstrations: the fact that the claim is not accompanied, or followed, by justifications even if requested, is immediately visible.

Some propaganda outlet I didn't say it is. I said: "potentially transforming this site in a propaganda outlet" And also "what if none will refute/disprove the claims"? And there were also other important points in my post.