joigus

Historically, they started as axioms, as said by Swansont. Those Einstein-DeBroglie axioms helped Schrödinger guess his equation, but he took a further step, because he involved the potential energy, which plays no role in the DeBroglie, Einstein, Bohr, etc. set of old quantum rules. Heisenberg used a more algebraic approach (matrix mechanics). Dirac proved that Schrödinger and Heisenberg's formulations are equivalent. But it was all guesswork. But in the modern formulation, you can deduce them by using the postulates. In particular, the canonical commutation relations. \[ \left[ X, P_x \right] = i \hbar I \] as well as the correspondence principle. Even today quantization of fields rests on the correspondence principle, which relies heavily on guesswork, because there is no unique way in general to postulate a quantum operator for a classical observable.

Irrefutable proof that there's virtually no limit to how expensive and silly a game can be at the same time.

I have serious doubts about the plausibility of an idea like this. Trying not to insist on previous points, with which I very much agree: 1st of all, similar ideas have been tried for centuries: anything that satisfies local conservation will spread following an inverse square law when expressed in the right variables 2nd, energy is not even an invariant or covariant concept, in GR it's not even well defined in general 3rd, energy is a very derived concept, constructed in each case from many different variables that do not relate to each other (charge, spin, non-linear terms in the Einstein tensor in the case of gravitational waves). 4rth, how does it relate to gauge charge, which is invariant? 5th, energy is bosonic, not fermionic, how does it build up fermionic states? 6th, reports of a new ToE candidate coming from the blackboards of young science professionals trying to draw attention to their speculations are ten a penny lately; the press is partly to blame for this noise effect And so on, and so on. If they can explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect with "just energy", I will eat my words, I promise. I know they can't.

(My emphasis.) All science is cartography. Get over it. But not anyone can build it. And thin air is not its substance. It's what the engineer does when trying to predict the behaviour of a device, and calibrate its parameters. It's what the biologist does when trying to understand the functions an interrelations of organisms. It's what the computer scientist does when trying to simulate a system with code. And it's what a physicist or a chemist does when trying to understand how particles and fields work. The very concept of particles and fields are cartographic references. And I'm damn happy that we have them. Otherwise we'd be lost in a bleak world. --- I'm sorry I can't react more today, as there were two brilliant comments before mine. LOL.

Rest assured I'm not going to understand why you're thinking anything. You've got your toys and I've got mine. I'm playing with the toys everybody plays with. They're sanity-tested toys. "Our time" you say. I can tell you, you're taking a lot of mine. A post unread doesn't clarify anything.

No, no, no. First come numbers. Then comes topology (neighbourhoods in a set defined by the relation \( \subseteq \) "contained in") Then comes geometry (defined by distance, a number assigned to pairs of "points": \( d\left(x,y\right) \)) From metric (distance) come angles, defined as ratios of distances, as @Sensei has told you. Topologies are possible to define even when there is no notion of a metric. Numbers don't have geometry built in them. You need numbers first. How else could you define the distance, which is a positive number? Topology is more primitive. You only need a notion of inclusion, open and closed sets, etc. Closed set: contains its boundary Open set: does not contain its boundary Edit: Dimension you can define with vectors (tangent space) or with analysis (number of real variables necessary to describe your set analitically). And so on... What a wasted effort!

I told you, and it's in bold letters. Are you saying I'm no-one, or are you saying I didn't tell you? Which one is it?

Because you couldn't be farther off the mark. That's not what bases are about. I and others have been telling you until we're blue in the mouth. You're using the oldest trick of the game, which is non-sequitur. It's as if someone tells you, "Mountains arise from mechanical tensions and thermal processes in the Earth's interior" and you say, "Then why are elephants winged creatures?" 1st) Elephants are not winged creatures (a false premise embedded in a question is called a sophism) 2nd) The question does not follow from the previous statement at all (that's called a non-sequitur) If you think for a moment most users here don't see right away what you're trying to do, you're quite wrong. You're not discussing in good faith. It's not about disagreement. It's about you not being intellectually honest. You're free to keep playing your game for as long as you want, but you're just calling for action from the mods and very justified annoyance from other users. Have a good day.

Although nothing would amuse me more than the picture of you being preyed upon by legal counsellors, I'd advice you to think it twice. In a previous post you bitterly complained about not being offered a job, as some kind of reward for your brilliant thinking. Set your priorities right, is all I can say. I don't wish you any wrong, in spite of your misled smugness and total disregard of the efforts of many users trying to help you to the best of their --our-- abilities. The bullying that you mention is about a post by @iNow on another thread that didn't even mention you. I almost forgot: numbers are not geometrically motivated. They come first. You can study their properties with topology --a basis of neighbourhoods-- or with geometry --distance, metric--. If you have n-tuples of numbers, then you can introduce angles, also from the metric.

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions. Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?

I didn't write any computer code. That was all by hand. They way it was done before computers arrived, other that Leibniz's calculating machine.

Sorry, I wrote 1/2 in binary. As I was presenting them in decimal, it should be, \[\frac{1}{2}=0.5\]

There is no chance that you can get it right, even by mistake. Acceleration in Galilean relativity is not relative. It's actually what all inertial observers agree upon, so it's a more invariant concept than velocity or position. In Einstein's relativity it's more involved, although you can generalise the concept by introducing proper time, but look who I'm talking too. What that has to do with OP, Newton and bases is anybody's guess.

CuriosOne, I've never seen anyone who understands so little and claims to understand so much at the same time. I'm very nearly done with you too.

I've often wondered whether he's from Cheshire rather than Gloucestershire. I think religions are born (were born) rather in the wolf way that iNow describes and Dimreepr would have them be. But as soon as a place becomes densely populated, the temptation for some individuals to get hold of it and use it as a tool of power is just too tempting much to overlook. There are strong hints of that going on at Stonehenge, Göbekli Tepe, the first Mesopotamian cities, like Eridu, even before the Abrahamic religions were set in motion. Human sacrifice and storage and management of surpluses go hand in hand in the archaeological record. And I don't think that's a coincidence. Edit: Another very interesting place in Jordan, now disappeared under a dam: Jerf-el-Ahmar. Goes back not very long after the end of the last Ice Age. There is evidence of human sacrifice and the existence of storage of agricultural surpluses. Priestly figures of power that somehow appear out of nowhere, wearing official gear, are very common already in pre-agricultural societies. Even in aboriginal Australia at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradshaw_rock_paintings They all wear funny hats and wield weapons or symbols of power of some kind --sceptre, mace, or similar--.

Interesting. Thank you. Although this is not a "base", "digits", and "place-holding" system AFAICS. I mean, not based on powers of the base for place holding, but on addition of the digit, so to speak. But very interesting anyway.

The evaluation or products --or fractions, for that matter-- does not depend on the base. Take, eg., \( 7\times3=21 \). In binary, the numbers \( 7 \) and \( 3 \) are written, \[7={\color{red}1}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}={\color{red}1{\color{red}1{\color{red}1}}}\] \[3={\color{red}0}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}={\color{red}0{\color{red}1{\color{red}1}}}\] You can even reproduce the algorithm for multiplication that you learnt at school, you only have to remember that, in binary, \( 1+1 \) gives zero, and carries \( 1 \). Then, \[\begin{array}{cccccc} & & & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1}\\ & & \times & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1}\\ & & & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & {\color{green}1} & {\color{green}0} & {\color{green}1} & {\color{green}0} & {\color{green}1} \end{array}\] Input numbers are in red, intermediate calculations are in black, and output is in green. Sure enough, it gives you \( 10101 \) which, in binary, is \( 21 \), \[{\color{red}1}\times2^{4}+{\color{red}0}\times2^{3}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}0}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}=16+4+1=21\] Floating-point numbers are floating-point numbers in any base. For example, \( \frac{1}{2} \) is \( 0.5 \) in decimal. In binary, eg, the only peculiarity is that they are expanded in terms of, \[\frac{1}{2}=0.1\] \[\frac{1}{2^{2}}=0.25\] \[\frac{1}{2^{3}}=0.125\] etc. Here's a trick with which you can convince yourself that decimal numbers in base 10 are decimal numbers in base 2 too: https://indepth.dev/posts/1019/the-simple-math-behind-decimal-binary-conversion-algorithms By successively multiplying by \( 2 \) and extracting the integer part as a sum of ones you can in principle get the whole series of floating-point digits (zeroes and ones). You must distinguish digits --(\( 0 \) and \( 1 \) in binary, \( 0 \), \( 1 \), \( 2 \), \( 3 \), \( 4 \), \( 7 \), \( 8 \), \( 9 \), in decimal, or \( 0 \), \( 1 \), \( 2 \), \( 3 \), \( 4 \), \( 7 \), \( 8 \), \( 9 \), \( a \), \( b \), \( c \), \( d \), \( e \), \( f \) in hexadecimal--. from the base powers -- \( 1=2^0 \), \( 2=2^1 \) etc. in binary; \( 1=10^0 \), \(10=10^1 \), etc., in decimal, and so on. You can use the same trick for hexadecimal base with the help of the page I gave you and the multiplication table, \[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc} {\color{teal}\times} & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}2} & {\color{red}3} & {\color{red}4} & {\color{red}5} & {\color{red}6} & {\color{red}7} & {\color{red}8} & {\color{red}9} & {\color{red}a} & {\color{red}b} & {\color{red}c} & {\color{red}d} & {\color{red}e} & {\color{red}f} & {\color{red}1{\color{red}0}}\\ {\color{red}0} & {\color{purple}0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ {\color{red}1} & 0 & {\color{purple}1} & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & a & b & c & d & e & f & 10\\ {\color{red}2} & 0 & 2 & {\color{purple}4} & 6 & 8 & a & c & e & g & 12 & 14 & 16 & 18 & 1a & 1c & 1e & 20\\ {\color{red}3} & 0 & 3 & 6 & {\color{purple}9} & c & f & 12 & 15 & 18 & 1b & 1e & 21 & 24 & 27 & 2a & 2d & 30\\ {\color{red}4} & 0 & 4 & 8 & c & {\color{purple}g} & 14 & 18 & 1c & 20 & 24 & 28 & 2c & 30 & 34 & 38 & 3c & 40\\ {\color{red}5} & 0 & 5 & a & f & 14 & {\color{purple}1{\color{purple}9}} & 1e & 23 & 28 & 2d & 32 & 37 & 3c & 41 & 46 & 4b & 50\\ {\color{red}6} & 0 & 6 & c & 12 & 18 & 1e & {\color{purple}2{\color{purple}4}} & 2a & 30 & 36 & 3c & 42 & 48 & 4e & 54 & 5a & 60\\ {\color{red}7} & 0 & 7 & e & 15 & 1c & 23 & 2a & {\color{purple}3{\color{purple}1}} & 38 & 3f & 46 & 4d & 54 & 5b & 62 & 69 & 70\\ {\color{red}8} & 0 & 8 & g & 18 & 20 & 28 & 30 & 38 & {\color{purple}4{\color{purple}0}} & 48 & 50 & 58 & 60 & 68 & 70 & 76 & 80\\ {\color{red}9} & 0 & 9 & 12 & 1b & 24 & 2d & 36 & 3f & 48 & {\color{purple}5{\color{purple}1}} & 5a & 63 & 6c & 75 & 7e & 87 & 90\\ {\color{red}a} & 0 & a & 14 & 1e & 28 & 32 & 3c & 46 & 50 & 5a & {\color{purple}6{\color{purple}4}} & 6e & 78 & 82 & 8c & 96 & a0\\ {\color{red}b} & 0 & b & 16 & 21 & 2c & 37 & 42 & 4d & 58 & 63 & 6e & {\color{purple}7{\color{purple}9}} & 84 & 8f & 9a & a5 & b0\\ {\color{red}c} & 0 & c & 18 & 24 & 30 & 3c & 48 & 54 & 60 & 6c & 78 & 84 & {\color{purple}9{\color{purple}0}} & 9c & a8 & b4 & c0\\ {\color{red}d} & 0 & d & 1a & 27 & 34 & 41 & 4e & 5b & 68 & 75 & 82 & 8f & 9c & {\color{purple}a{\color{purple}9}} & b6 & c3 & d0\\ {\color{red}e} & 0 & e & 1c & 2a & 38 & 46 & 54 & 62 & 70 & 7e & 8c & 9a & a8 & b6 & {\color{purple}c{\color{purple}4}} & d2 & e0\\ {\color{red}f} & 0 & f & 1e & 2d & 3c & 4b & 5a & 69 & 76 & 87 & 96 & a5 & b4 & c3 & d2 & {\color{purple}e{\color{purple}1}} & f0\\ {\color{red}1{\color{red}0}} & 0 & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 90 & a0 & b0 & c0 & d0 & e0 & f0 & {\color{purple}1{\color{purple}0{\color{purple}0}}} \end{array}\] In any base you must use as many digits as your base (always a positive integer different from one). In hexadecimal you can only use \(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f\). Some properties of real numbers are counter-intuitive, and you seem to have lots of problems with them. For example: two different real numbers can never "touch each other" (be just next to each other with no other real number in between). This property you are grappling with is not one of those counter-intuitive properties. Swansont, MigL, and Studiot are doing a great job of explaining. I've tried to add auxiliary explanations that you're free to ignore if you find they don't help you. And, as @studiot said, be careful to distinguish pure numbers from physical quantities. Physical scalars are a different thing. They carry units. So they are subject to transformation laws. Only ratios of scalars are pure numbers. As a final exercise, let's write \( \frac{1}{5} \) in binary: \[\frac{1}{5}=0.2\] \[2\times0.2={\color{red}0}+{\color{red}0}.4\] \[2\times0.4={\color{red}0}+{\color{red}0}.8\] \[2\times0.8={\color{red}1}+0.6\] \[2\times1.6={\color{red}1}+{\color{red}1}+0.2\] etc. You keep going. The numbers in red are the binary digits of your fractional number. You get, \[\frac{1}{5}=0.001100110011...\:\textrm{(base two)}\] Which means, \[\frac{1}{5}={\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2}+{\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2^{2}}+{\color{red}1}\times\frac{1}{2^{3}}+{\color{red}1}\times\frac{1}{2^{4}}+{\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2^{5}}+{\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2^{6}}+\cdots\]

Oh, base 1. What a great idea.

\[\begin{array}{cccccc} & & & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1}\\ & & \times & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1}\\ & & & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & {\color{green}1} & {\color{green}0} & {\color{green}1} & {\color{green}0} & {\color{green}1} \end{array}\]

Look out for crawling thinkers. More than a million dollars are at stake.

Test on hexadecimal multiplication table with matrix & colours. \[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc} {\color{teal}\times} & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}2} & {\color{red}3} & {\color{red}4} & {\color{red}5} & {\color{red}6} & {\color{red}7} & {\color{red}8} & {\color{red}9} & {\color{red}a} & {\color{red}b} & {\color{red}c} & {\color{red}d} & {\color{red}e} & {\color{red}f} & {\color{red}10}\\ {\color{red}0} & {\color{purple}0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ {\color{red}1} & 0 & {\color{purple}1} & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & a & b & c & d & e & f & 10\\ {\color{red}2} & 0 & 2 & {\color{purple}4} & 6 & 8 & a & c & e & g & 12 & 14 & 16 & 18 & 1a & 1c & 1e & 20\\ {\color{red}3} & 0 & 3 & 6 & {\color{purple}9} & c & f & 12 & 15 & 18 & 1b & 1e & 21 & 24 & 27 & 2a & 2d & 30\\ {\color{red}4} & 0 & 4 & 8 & c & {\color{purple}g} & 14 & 18 & 1c & 20 & 24 & 28 & 2c & 30 & 34 & 38 & 3c & 40\\ {\color{red}5} & 0 & 5 & a & f & 14 & {\color{purple}19} & 1e & 23 & 28 & 2d & 32 & 37 & 3c & 41 & 46 & 4b & 50\\ {\color{red}6} & 0 & 6 & c & 12 & 18 & 1e & {\color{purple}24} & 2a & 30 & 36 & 3c & 42 & 48 & 4e & 54 & 5a & 60\\ {\color{red}7} & 0 & 7 & e & 15 & 1c & 23 & 2a & {\color{purple}31} & 38 & 3f & 46 & 4d & 54 & 5b & 62 & 69 & 70\\ {\color{red}8} & 0 & 8 & g & 18 & 20 & 28 & 30 & 38 & {\color{purple}40} & 48 & 50 & 58 & 60 & 68 & 70 & 76 & 80\\ {\color{red}9} & 0 & 9 & 12 & 1b & 24 & 2d & 36 & 3f & 48 & {\color{purple}51} & 5a & 63 & 6c & 75 & 7e & 87 & 90\\ {\color{red}a} & 0 & a & 14 & 1e & 28 & 32 & 3c & 46 & 50 & 5a & {\color{purple}64} & 6e & 78 & 82 & 8c & 96 & a0\\ {\color{red}b} & 0 & b & 16 & 21 & 2c & 37 & 42 & 4d & 58 & 63 & 6e & {\color{purple}79} & 84 & 8f & 9a & a5 & b0\\ {\color{red}c} & 0 & c & 18 & 24 & 30 & 3c & 48 & 54 & 60 & 6c & 78 & 84 & {\color{purple}90} & 9c & a8 & b4 & c0\\ {\color{red}d} & 0 & d & 1a & 27 & 34 & 41 & 4e & 5b & 68 & 75 & 82 & 8f & 9c & {\color{purple}a9} & b6 & c3 & d0\\ {\color{red}e} & 0 & e & 1c & 2a & 38 & 46 & 54 & 62 & 70 & 7e & 8c & 9a & a8 & b6 & {\color{purple}c4} & d2 & e0\\ {\color{red}f} & 0 & f & 1e & 2d & 3c & 4b & 5a & 69 & 76 & 87 & 96 & a5 & b4 & c3 & d2 & {\color{purple}e1} & f0\\ {\color{red}10} & 0 & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 90 & a0 & b0 & c0 & d0 & e0 & f0 & {\color{purple}100} \end{array}\] \[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc} {\color{teal}\times} & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}2} & {\color{red}3} & {\color{red}4} & {\color{red}5} & {\color{red}6} & {\color{red}7} & {\color{red}8} & {\color{red}9} & {\color{red}a} & {\color{red}b} & {\color{red}c} & {\color{red}d} & {\color{red}e} & {\color{red}f} & {\color{red}1\color{red}0}\\ {\color{red}0} & {\color{purple}0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ {\color{red}1} & 0 & {\color{purple}1} & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & a & b & c & d & e & f & 10\\ {\color{red}2} & 0 & 2 & {\color{purple}4} & 6 & 8 & a & c & e & g & 12 & 14 & 16 & 18 & 1a & 1c & 1e & 20\\ {\color{red}3} & 0 & 3 & 6 & {\color{purple}9} & c & f & 12 & 15 & 18 & 1b & 1e & 21 & 24 & 27 & 2a & 2d & 30\\ {\color{red}4} & 0 & 4 & 8 & c & {\color{purple}g} & 14 & 18 & 1c & 20 & 24 & 28 & 2c & 30 & 34 & 38 & 3c & 40\\ {\color{red}5} & 0 & 5 & a & f & 14 & {\color{purple}1\color{purple}9} & 1e & 23 & 28 & 2d & 32 & 37 & 3c & 41 & 46 & 4b & 50\\ {\color{red}6} & 0 & 6 & c & 12 & 18 & 1e & {\color{purple}2\color{purple}4} & 2a & 30 & 36 & 3c & 42 & 48 & 4e & 54 & 5a & 60\\ {\color{red}7} & 0 & 7 & e & 15 & 1c & 23 & 2a & {\color{purple}3\color{purple}1} & 38 & 3f & 46 & 4d & 54 & 5b & 62 & 69 & 70\\ {\color{red}8} & 0 & 8 & g & 18 & 20 & 28 & 30 & 38 & {\color{purple}4\color{purple}0} & 48 & 50 & 58 & 60 & 68 & 70 & 76 & 80\\ {\color{red}9} & 0 & 9 & 12 & 1b & 24 & 2d & 36 & 3f & 48 & {\color{purple}5\color{purple}1} & 5a & 63 & 6c & 75 & 7e & 87 & 90\\ {\color{red}a} & 0 & a & 14 & 1e & 28 & 32 & 3c & 46 & 50 & 5a & {\color{purple}6\color{purple}4} & 6e & 78 & 82 & 8c & 96 & a0\\ {\color{red}b} & 0 & b & 16 & 21 & 2c & 37 & 42 & 4d & 58 & 63 & 6e & {\color{purple}7\color{purple}9} & 84 & 8f & 9a & a5 & b0\\ {\color{red}c} & 0 & c & 18 & 24 & 30 & 3c & 48 & 54 & 60 & 6c & 78 & 84 & {\color{purple}9\color{purple}0} & 9c & a8 & b4 & c0\\ {\color{red}d} & 0 & d & 1a & 27 & 34 & 41 & 4e & 5b & 68 & 75 & 82 & 8f & 9c & {\color{purple}a\color{purple}9} & b6 & c3 & d0\\ {\color{red}e} & 0 & e & 1c & 2a & 38 & 46 & 54 & 62 & 70 & 7e & 8c & 9a & a8 & b6 & {\color{purple}c\color{purple}4} & d2 & e0\\ {\color{red}f} & 0 & f & 1e & 2d & 3c & 4b & 5a & 69 & 76 & 87 & 96 & a5 & b4 & c3 & d2 & {\color{purple}e\color{purple}1} & f0\\ {\color{red}1\color{red}0} & 0 & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 90 & a0 & b0 & c0 & d0 & e0 & f0 & {\color{purple}1\color{purple}0\color{purple}0} \end{array}\]

\[7={\color{red}1}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}={\color{red}111}\] \[7={\color{red}1}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}={\color{red}1}{\color{red}1}{\color{red}1}\]

(My emphasis) Real thinkers don't crawl; they glide. They also share knowledge. They are good listeners and readers of other people's ideas, as well as communicators of their own. (My emphasis) Oh boy, the box again. Real thinkers know the way back home, to the safety of the trusty box, and always keep handy the key to it, because it's where everything makes sense. And no matter how far away from the box they might venture, they never lose sight of the box's entrances, and have a good mental picture of its rooms and corridors. When they're back home, they meet people who live in the box, and they're quite capable of talking about box-related, domestic matters. But during their outings, they find people of all sorts, some of them are lost, barefoot, exhausted, paranoid about every little sound in the forest, following no line of bread crumbs, unable to find their bearings.

Because one country can be worked into one unit of awareness and political action. If that country happens to have 1.5 billion people --or thereabouts-- in it and a concerted action can be taken so that they all --or most-- do their part of the deal, the situation will improve considerably. It's not like the ice of Greenland is gonna say: "Wait a minute, don't melt just yet; that CO2 is Chinese!" China is not only very highly populated. It's very densely populated as well, when compared to, eg., Russia and Canada.

This is a very bad start. Photons don't need to be propelled. The rest of the sentence does not make any sense. Second sentence is badly, badly wrong. This belongs in Speculations. It is a speculation, and a awful one at that. It doesn't stand together. Let alone against physical reality.