jajrussel

No I don’t think it is true. Well, not always I once met a Genius. He couldn’t dumb things down. Most people avoided taking to him. He loved to talk. I found the conversation fascinating. His enthusiasm for explaining every little thing was just as fascinating. It took me 15 minutes to figure out that he was explaining to me why the guttering I was installing worked I spent years installing guttering so once I figured out what he was talking about. That conversation went a lot easier. He was in his thirties I’m guessing . His parents had to take care of him. His inability to dumb things down was a handicap. I could only follow his conversations because I made an effort, and from one minute to the next the subject would change, but it only took fifteen minutes of talking about something I did know about to figure out that everything he said would probably make sense to someone a lot smarter than me.

Q1: I don’t know Q2: I don’t know Q3: It is real Q4: It is imaginary Q5: I can only imagine

It’s a good question. I’m sure that when the answer is revealed we will find out why the US even cares about Hauwei in the first place. Are there any EU executives avoiding Canada at the moment?

I don’t really know. I kind of got annoyed when my understanding was that I was being accused of being willing to sacrifice whole counties by letting one of them get plump through trade then basically waiting to see what happens when or if Russia gets annex happy. Then it was pointed out that the EU was basically just a central bank with no real military powers. Which I found to be a foolish thing to do in that area if one would want to remain a stable central bank. it was pointed out that NATO was supposed to be the big stick. And really I have no problem with that analogy, except for the fact that we are being threatened with nuclear missiles and nuclear hellfire, and without regard to what was being thought by The forming EU when it was founded NATO is not likely to do anything to stop that but posture. It has been made perfectly clear that sanctions and posturing are useless gestures. The threat of a nonnuclear response is a useless gesture. The truth is Russia and China does what they want when they want. As an analogy if the response is just going to be to swat at them with American and NATO troops then hold the troops and progressively hit them with everything we have and when that’s gone then use the troops. I’m assuming that sometime in the conflict we may have to respond to their threat, then there will be one choice respond in kind. I'm guessing that we wil be the ones to throw the first nuke, cause we are kind of out numbered. We will run out of bodies long before they do. And every bit of this whole foolish thought scenario can be avoided if the countries involved will just pick up the guns they have available when invaded and just use the damn things without waiting for us or NATO to come to the rescue, or we can do business as usual. I got no problem with a rescue, but I wouldn’t want to fight their damn war...This is just my opinion it’s not an argument. I still find it incredulous that NATO was supposed to be the military foundation of the EU. We should have got the hell out of NATO as soon as it was implied, or suggested.

Nothing has changed in what I said. You are the one calling NATO a stick. I’m just not arguing against your opinion of what The EU was depending on as a big stick. I’m using the label you gave it.

I guess you could use the stick as a crutch? So, honestly you are now saying that NATO was the military foundation upon which the EU was founded. Seriously, no one who wants to be taken seriously theses days waves a big stick. This I agree with...

It is am impressive big stick, but I’m guessing it is only for self defense. I’m curious do they have to take a vote? I don’t recall reading that when the EU formed they intended to use NATO as a big stick. Is that the real reason the UK wants out of the EU? After all one of the buffer countries has to do is attack. Then in self defense the big stick would have to swing, or break. If either should happen would you want your country financially tied directly to the event? How much do you sacrifice when the only sane effect you can produce is a shrug of the shoulders, and an attitude of indifference? It’s the face that is presented on the news every day from both China, an Russia, and hell, now even Kim is shrugging his shoulders saying what big stick?

Ah, so they simply agree to use the same central bank, otherwise it is every country for them self? So, when Russia decides to annex its neighbors is it the rest of the world and not the locals who are responsible? It’s a region where the biggest and baddest has always done exactly what it wants. Generally when someone bigger than you takes something from you and no one can stop them you are the one expected to make the sacrifice. You can’t take it back. Your neighbors don’t seem inclined, nor are they apparently legally bound to take it back for you. So, who’s the one willingly making a sacrifice? Is it NATO for not running in arms blazing? Is to the UK for wanting out of the EU? I’m guessing that the original post question was asked in the hopes of scaring the UK into staying because now the EU has to make a move for stability, and what would be the scariest thing that could happen. Do you consider helping them through trade the sacrifice or is it standing by while the other two countries consider their opinions after the possible annex as the sacrifice? The fact that the EU formed without a big stick is in my opinion, when the sacrifice was made. When it comes to China or Russia we are all toothless. Unless we are really ready to make a monumental sacrifice all we can do is posture. They have been trying to take us down economically for years it hasn’t worked. It will never work. China slammed its economic doors in the rest of the worlds face. Not only are they still around, but they have returned economically stable. They are living proof that a large enough economy can be self sufficient. I’m perfectly willing to listen to what they think...

Why is it always an argument about what Einstein thought and never about what Newton thought?

Sometimes after starting a reply with a quote I think better of what I want to say, so I just want the reply I’ve started to go away. Is there a simple way to do that? The only thing I have been able figure out is to close the app. Reopen it then select clear the text box after it gives me the option. Is there a way to cancel the reply post without leaving the forum?

Using DrP’s logic had the Ukraine been a member of the EU it would have been the duty of the EU to give the Ukraine the same defensive protection that would have been due France should someone attack the French. I can’t see it. I’m thinking that someone would have reiterated once again that they were mostly Russians anyway, and because it’s the EU there would have been a call for sanctions and a shrug of the shoulders by Russia after indicating that they would be slightly bothered. I doubt that being a member of the EU would stop Russia from doing what it wants to do. Right now those countries act as a buffer between Russia and the EU. Instead of asking the Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus to join the EU. It might be better to help the smaller to become financially stable through trade then see if Russia reacts with another annexation. If they don’t, that would be a good thing. If they do, it might give the other two countries something to think about.

Have a good Christmas...

Do you really think it would be 1/28th of a say in how the EU was run. And if Russia should decide it doesn’t have to comply? Yes the EU Military world be greatly strengthened should it remain yours (the EU’s). I don’t know that the EU ever considered the UK military as theirs, why would they consider Russia’s military as theirs? Even if they did only have 1/28 control of the EU how much of the military do you think they would control? 1/28th?

Unification? I’m thinking it would be more like economic control. If you look at old trade route maps you might notice that historically the economic thought was it was better economically to go around. I’m guessing the fear of having no economic control of their future is why they spent so much money going around. Then consider that the types of government appear to be incompatible. Also ask what would have happened had the Ukraine been part of the EU when Russia decided to annex Crimea? With I heard a large number of Crimea’s citizens considering themselves Russian anyway. Does the EU say well okay in that case go ahead. Hmm, has Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus And Russia shown an interest in joining the EU? How, is it that you would see it as a decisive step from an EU Perspective when there is already a demonstrated possibility that at sometime in the future once again it could be said; “We don’t see the problem, most of them consider themselves to be Russian anyway...” as they shut down the economies of those EU members who would dare to complain. Wouldn’t it be an even more decisive step if the EU was to accept Indonesia. I don’t know that they have or even would ask, but their governments are much more similar, however there would also be the danger, of Indonesia just giving everything it has worked for and accomplished away. I’m thinking that from the EU’s perspective that reunification would be the more desirable move based on old trade route maps. I do agree that what you suggest would be a decisive historical step for the EU, but I would like to know your thoughts and reasons as to why?

I’m fairly certain I read an article recently that asserted the Chinese and or Russian governments are hell bent on colluding with the President to obtain information about American citizens that can be obtained by anyone visiting one of my favorite information resources. I assume that the Russian / Chinese role is to insure that the info obtained by wiki is correct, or maybe they are in fact the source, and here I thought that the EU was asserting that JW’s were the source. Pherhaps we need laws passed that indicate to foreign governments that any information they obtain by spying or by visiting Wikipedia falls under and must comply with data privacy laws. I’m also gong to assume (not really) that in the near future that the EU will be justifying asserting JW compliance by law is necessary because they have it on good authority the JW organization is suspected of colluding alongside our president with the Chinese and the Russians to make sure that any and all information obtained by Wikipedia continues to be accurate and free. Actually, I am almost ashamed to admit that I too would like for Wikipedia’s information to continue to be accurate and free. My reasoning being that I have developed a sense of distrust of the media, not because of anything the president has been saying, but because I grew up in an era where tabloids littered the checkout isles in grocery and department stores, so I know what a tabloid looks like, and Wikipedia is one of the few news sources on the web that doesn’t present as a tabloid. I keep fearing I am going to tap one of the blue words thinking I’m following an internal link in keeping with the subject, only to find myself asking what the hell does long johns extra special healing salve Have to do with the standard model of particle physics. At the moment I am inclined to rely on Tv or radio for my news for the simple reason that they don’t force me to tap a button that might turn out to be an advertisement. I am not overly excited by these new Smart TVs that are coming out. You know the ones that watch you while you watch them. Supposedly, so they can better serve you. And the EU’s biggest worry is JW’s. Lol.... I’m glad I’m an old man . I can’t imagine growing up in a world where I’d have to keep exclaiming. “No mom, I have no clue why that stupid tasteless commercial is on every channel. You do realize I’m not the only one who watches TV in this house! Ask one of them..” Okay? Way off topic. Hmm...

Lol. What “good” is? Or, what “good is it?” The act of ordering JW’s to comply with data privacy laws? It may be different in the EU, but in the US any politician and apparently their organization receives from the Government at the minimum, what might entrest a JW, I would say maybe even more, but a JW being human and knowing the power of knowledge likely does have a keen interest in data. They have been using knowledge to control any and all opposing arguments for years. Another question might be what good is ment to come from th EU’s action? I don’t know where you are from, but if you are from the US, I would ask how many times before the last election did a complete stranger knock on your door and ask for you by name wanting to talk to you about the candidate they represent already knowing more about you than perhaps you’re friends and family might know about you politically. What party you belong to, are you registered, etc? They don’t get that from the JW’s. JW’s are noted for enthusiastic use of the courts to protect what they see as their rights, but they profess a keen disinterest in politics. Presumably in the hope of governments not taking political actions against them. Noted in their literature. They present their ability to function in certain countries because their lack of political interest. I also have the impression that they like being viewed as the underdog. The belief that Satan wouldn’t be so hell bent on getting them if their belief was not the truth . People who attack them for simply being JW’s fuel the belief. It may have been a genius move by the EU. Not because you have a lot to fear from the JW’s gathering of your personal data, well, no more than any other gatherer of data, but because if anyone can find a way to defeat the governments intent of the passing of the law it will be the JW’s. Read their literature they are proud of their ability to do that also. Note - it could also seem that the EU views the collection of personal data as evil, or at the minimum an economic access they would prefer to control themself.

The character Paul presents in Galatians that essentially if you live in the Spirit then there is no need for law. Essentially your desire wil be to do only good things,and that everyone should know that laws are not needed nor are they written to govern that which is good. He also presents that Jewish Law was ment to govern Human nature which you have pointed out can be both good and bad without regard either way to the name of God being mentioned. He essentially seems to be saying ( the character Paul, not you) that by choosing the law a man is admitting that his nature is human ,and not spiritual. I recently read or heard a podcast (my nature is to forget things ) where it was suggested that Jewish law was given to to the Jews more so as a reminder of what they had forgotten while in Egypt. Hmm, I believe it was a Jewish podcast. If I remember correctly the point was that Jewish Law did not start with Mosses. That it would have been known by Jacob, Joseph and their family upon their entry into Egypt to avoid starvation due to drought. I believe that in the Jewish version the time frame spent in Egypt is shorter then the time frame sugeested by Christian scholars. I would think that the time frame suggested by Jewish scholars would be the one most accurate since it is their history, but the point being that without regard to the accuracy of time. They lived in Egypt long enough that their past in a sense zeroed out to the point that the only thing really known was that they were not Egyptian. Their origin was different than the one they were surviving just before the Exodus. Jewish law as presented by Mosses was ment to help in the transition from a life of slavery to a life where they would be free to remember who they originally were. I don’t believe that this is in line with what the character Paul presents in Galatians. Which is kind of surprising considering his stated original profession. I am not sure that your example is a good one... Though it is a thoughtful one, meaning it inspires thought, but my opinion would be that if it has to be the way you stated it, then the wrong man died, so no it would not really be a good thing. Question? Is the example supposed to be an analogy to Jesus’s death on the cross. If it was I would ask the same thing for the same reason. Was it really a good thing that a man had to die to protect a child? Even if you didn’t mean it as an analogy, I’ll make the analogy, and then ask the question?

Hmm, I have not thought about this long enough that I have forgotten what I was originally thinking/questioning, but this answer kind of confuses me. So, I basically need to start over from the beginning, but from the hip if I observe a moving clock display slower time, I assume relatively explaines the time difference ? And I can think of many reasons why when measuring energy the measure being measured might be different but is it due to reasons, but can you be sure that energy is not invariant? How can you expect your clocks to be predictably precise if energy is not invariant? I would think that something would have to interfere with that predictable invariance in order for the clock to display a variance. I think the initial problem with my thought was that I was invisioning each continuous tick of the clock as a frequency, thus being able to present as a wave pattern , but I pretty much have to start over. Is it wrong to think of each second as a complete cycle then transition that thought into a wavelength pattern? Maybe someone can explain why the speed of light is invariant if energy isn’t? Please understand I am not challenging Einstein...

When I think the word mass I invision a blob that can be large or small, which is not very discriptive, and probably has little to do with mass. Is the more specific meaning, mass = (The resistance to change, in motion.) ?

It would seem to me that removing weight should be as simple as becoming an astronaut. Get away from gravity. If my understanding of black holes is correct, it would seem that what is needed is a lot of mass in a much smaller area, so I’m curious as to why things like atoms would get bigger? Actually, even atoms getting smaller sounds a little strange, but I am making the assumption that atoms need a certain amount of area in order to exist as atoms. Hmm? Is kinetic energy similar to fictional force? I once thought of the gravitational effect on a photon as a virtual effect, can the same sense be applied to kinetic energy to the effect that an increase in mass is a virtual effect? But, virtual or not I would think that by displaying mass a photon would present a change in acceleration displayed as a curve which when observed would appear as slowing down since a curved line between two points takes longer to transit than a straight line, but what do I know? My understanding is that if you add mass to a photon through a medium it slows down. It doesn’t go faster, so there’s no reason to think that FTL can be achieved by loosing weight and applying energy, but like I said what do I know?

This conversation started off like a science attempt at improvisational Jazz. Then seemingly turned to an example of order from kaos. I keep thinking that Dobie Gillis is going to step in any second now and explain the inner genius workings of Maynard’s mind. At the minimum this thread does seem to be in the right category...

Apparently, one can only guess, is the answer to both questions.

Why nonlinear?

The memories of people from that time period were apparently somewhat astounding. I would think that as a prisoner of Rome. The abilities of Paul to tote around a bunch of scrolls would have been somewhat limited. It is said he had eye problems so reading scrolls would seem to add to the difficulty, so I’m thinking Paul the possessor of a phenomenal memory. The scriptures likely Jewish. Though according to the phenomenal story he had an epiphany somewhat within Jewish scripture as to fit within the norm. As in, as a story it fits just enough, but there are aspects that also fit within traditional local beliefs to the extent that even today arguments are made that Christian beliefs are an extension of Zoroaster Even if he was allowed as a prisoner to have servents to pack and carry his things, which to me seems a little far fetched. As a Roman athority do you arrest a man then allow his servents to tag along as you move from one province to another. Where is the money coming from? Who feeds the servents.? Who’s handling the money? As a Roman authority do you arrest one man then allow his friends to just tag along? Feeding them? Worrying? Do I trust that they do nothing to interfere with the duties I’m charged to complete. Or do I arrest the man, confiscate his posestions, and sell them to pay the fare. Making it clear that no one just tags along on Rome’s dime. The only scribe tagging along would be keeping a strict accounting of the money, to be presented at the end of my tour to Ceasor lest Ceasor judge me more harshly than the prisoner I’m hauling around. My point being it has the sound of a good motivational story. Believable only to those wanting motivation, and even then only if they are somewhat removed from the truth. People believe what they want to believe. Some are even 99.99% certain they are going to be persecuted for their beliefs. Let me think. Wrapped in animal hide, painted with pitch then set to torch. A thing credited to those Romans who according to the story accorded Paul all hospitality, or banning? The imagination is being stretched. You are not being asked to reject your religion. The ban is against preaching. Getting swept up by the ban is a matter of choice. The Gospels certainly would not have been part of the scripture known or carried by Paul given his initial occupation, but its possible he was aware of local traditions. Once again assuming the story is based on a real person that existed. A record of a name of a man executed by the Romans isn’t proof that the story is actually the executed mans story. It doesn’t really matter how many times the story is repeated. It doesn’t become more real with repetition. It’s the kind of thing that even Islam requires. A belief in things unseen. A thing Christians call faith. When we are taught that only God is good. It is little wonder that we have so little faith in men, but all good things are done by men. My opinion, good things generally occur when people get tired of other people insisting on doing things in name of God. Note, when a person gets banned the conversation can continue. I noted in another thread that in this section moderators can be to quick to close a thread. I can be empathetic, but banning doesn’t necessarily mean a decent conversation ends. I’m about 99.99% percent sure that’s the truth of it.

Okay I watched this video My question is how did they observe the photon? Is there any chance that the method of observation created a polarizing effect?