Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlexL

Regulars
  • Posts

    741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by AlexL

  1. If this is (also) for me, could you please decode it? Who is "belligerent sycophant" etc.? Please.
  2. Gen. Keith Kellogg words do not support the "longer game" hypothesis. They support "the simplest hypothesis", which stays on the table and thus got even stronger than before.
  3. Site " 1420", Daniil Orain, micro-interviews, 25 February 2023, in Moscow. Theme: "What do Russians think of Putin? (with blurred faces for more honest answers)"
  4. So: our common conclusion is now that for both free and interacting particles, the total momentum of a closed system is conserved in the Newtonian, as well as in relativistic mechanics. For the Wigner Theorem and the No-interaction Theorem this means that, whatever they say [you didn't really specify...], they do not, in fact, imply non-conservation. PS: Your justifications/comments to point #1 seem extremely confusing to me. We can discuss this, if you wish.
  5. I was trying to put some order in our discussion, which is about a subject which is already complicated and doesn’t need a multiplication of issues. I asked two questions. Please answer them. Here are they, with some of their context : The implication seem to be that in an isolated system (isolated from external influences), where the constituents do NOT interact electrically (why only electrically, btw?), the total momentum is not conserved. (You added that this is specific to the 4-momentum, that is to special relativity only, because in the Newtonian mechanics the total 3-momentum is conserved.) 1. Do you agree that THIS would be the implication? 2. Do you insist that this is also factually true, that is that the total momentum of a system of non-interacting relativistic constituents is NOT conserved? I believe there must be a misunderstanding somewhere, because the 4-momentum conservation of an isolated system is a well established observational fact – whatever the interaction between the constituents is, including when it is absent. Depending on your answer, we will see - if there is indeed a contradiction between what we see and the results you’ve mentioned – the Wigner Theorem and the no-interaction theorem, - or that the results you’ve mentioned do not, in fact, imply non-conservation PS: regarding the necessity to also account for the interaction fields - I already addressed this by specifying: "please note that I do not define “total momentum” as the sum of individual momenta." This implies that the total momentum I was talking about also includes the contribution from the fields.
  6. You din not provide a credible reference/proof that the casualty numbers are true or even that they come from Mossad [*]. Therefore they can be safely ignored (Hitchen's Razor, e.g.). Also, a credible fact-checker shows that the numbers - of human casualties - lack plausibility. Saying this does not mean endorsing other numbers, especially those coming from Ukraine or Russia, the warring parties. The characteristic of a propagandist is that he does not provide proof for its claims and, even if asked to, refuses to do so. And, instead, switches to name calling. --------- [*] Besides, there is not much reason for Mossad to dedicate its own resources to determine independently the number of casualties. Moreover, Mossad is by far not infallible, despite its reputation.
  7. Your initial assertion was: The implication seem to be that in an isolated system (isolated from external influences), where the constituents do NOT interact electrically (why only electrically, btw?), the total momentum is not conserved. (You added that this is specific to the 4-momentum, that is to special relativity only, because in the Newtonian mechanics the total 3-momentum is conserved.) 1. Do you agree that THIS would be the implication? 2. Do you insist that this is also factually true, that is that the total momentum of a system of non-interacting relativistic constituents is NOT conserved? I believe there must be a misunderstanding somewhere, because the 4-momentum conservation of an isolated system is a well established observational fact – whatever the interaction between the constituents is, including when it is absent. From this observational fact it follows that any considerations which contradict it (Wigner theorem, non-interaction theorem) are either false or do not, in fact, contradict it (the fact of conservation, that is.) (Just in case: please note that I do not define “total momentum” as the sum of individual momenta.)
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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>
  11. 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?
  12. 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 ☹️
  13. 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!
  14. 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.
  15. 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 ☹️
  16. 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...
  17. 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.
  18. 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"
  19. 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? ☹️
  20. 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?
  21. «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?
  22. OO. I think you are overreacting. As I said, I can also live with the status quo.
  23. 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.
  24. 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 ?
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...