Apeofman

I know what you mean, but i reckon you could start off the game with a limited rule set, and update it as circumstance or reason requires. I am not suggesting the imposition of the winning games result on the governments of nations. If sufficient people played such a game' date=' it would at least provide an insight as to what trade offs would be politically acceptable to their people. It seems to me that if you are warring, all your mental effort goes into defeating your enemies, without any consideration of their desires whatsoever. A winning game played by people of opposing views, requires mutual consideration and compromise. A chance to think about being a good neighbour, perhaps. When each side is determined to give way a little more than the other. Me too.

Year after year the war continues between Israel and it's neighbours. No reasonable solution to resolve the conflicting issues between Israel and it's neighbours exists. It has occured to me, that a solution might be arrived at, if the conflicting requirements of each side could be incorperated into a board game. The game could be played on the web by Palestinians, Israelis, and others. The game would consist of many boards, each board having at least two opposing players. The players of each board would negotiate/barter real issues, and respond to events. The game winners would be the players of the board that arrives at sustainable peace in a short time, and is polled best solution by players and onlookers. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Maybe there is an existing game that can be adapted? Apeofman say's..May the desert bloom by a living sea when all minds turn to peaceful pursuit..

I understand that, but i don't yet see how Jakari's propositions give rise to a result greater than c, if he is taking that into account. Maybe things will be clearer after some sleep. Interesting topic.

In which case velocities a and b are relative to an unmentioned stationary refererence frame containing an observer who i will call O. i.e Vab= (Vao+Vbo)/(1+(VaoVbo/c^2)) gives the right answer to "0.5c + 0.5c = 0.8c" JaKiri however chose to .. ..What vertical component:confused: Relative to what:confused: Where: was this mentioned in your previous post. When the quantities are properly specified the equation Jakari cited..(a+b)/(1+(ab/c^2)) does not produce a sum greater than c. So why now state " and therefore will have a total relative velocity of greater than c.":confused: It is my understanding that, in the context of relativity, relative velocity, is measured in the observers frame of reference along the direction of the observed objects motion. This relative measured velocity can be used in the Lorentz transforms and it's derivatives such as the relativistic velocity addition equation cited. For example.. With permission from magen.co.uk Note. This is an old picture. The word "see":eek: is incorrect. Should be, measures/observe's (along the axis of motion!). Look's like i need to update:embarass: Time for sleep. Maybe reality will different then:D

Hi Rocket Man, I hope this helps. Doppler shift is due to a change in the wavelength of light that occurs when an object is moving toward or away from an observer. It might help to consider an electromagnetic wave as being(emitted)extruded from an object onto a conveyer belt of constant velocity c, to be later retrieved by an observer. The length of the observed extrusion is dependant on the relative velocities of the emitting object during the time of emission and the observer during the time of observation. If emitting object, and observer are relatively stationary, then the observed extruded wave length will be the same for both emitting object and observer. If the emitting object was moving away from the observer, the wave extruded onto the conveyer would be longer, however the extruded wave would still travel at the same velocity c, to the observer. If the emitting object was moving towards the observer, the wave extruded onto the conveyer would be shorter, however the extruded wave would still travel at the same velocity c, to the observer. Also, i believe that the doppler effect, is not a relativistic effect. In addition to the doppler effect, the wave length is also subject to time dilation, which is a relativistic effect.

Hi sunspot, and USA taxpayers, I don't know much about your tax system over there. However, i recently heard an American on the BBC, promoting a variation of "negative tax" for the USA. Below is a proposal, that was put to the UK government, at the beginning of their first term. The figures are somewhat out of date. I would be interested in your opinions on this approach, to remove the poverty trap, and to promote wealth and job creation. I am a citizen who has been, unemployed, employed, self employed, a worker, and an employer. I wish you to know and consider my opinions on the matter of welfare reform. Citizens within a democratic society submit themselves to society's laws and regulations, for the benefit of the majority. Observance of society's laws and regulations, restricts the citizens options to manage their own welfare. Some citizens may find themselves excluded from lawfully providing for themselves, on account of their age, health, or other circumstances. An ideal state takes responsibility for the welfare of all it's citizens. Those who are excluded from providing for their own welfare, are in some way provided for, out of the national bounty. The state simply takes on the responsibility of it's citizens, in return for their observance of society's laws and regulations. Within the British Isles, the state provides for it's citizens welfare, by means of a patchwork of benefits. However, the system was developed to fulfil the needs of a society with different work and life expectations, than to days society. It does not satisfy the needs of a society faced with today's occupational circumstances. An alternative is now required. The proposed integrated tax benefit system, call it Xat, requires that the majority of welfare benefits be integrated into the tax system, by way of tax code credits. Under Xat, the state pays each citizen a basic living amount, determined by their individual tax code, and the states ability to pay. All other income that a citizen receives, is taxable. Under Xat, each citizen would have a basic wage which is unaffected by additional income, consequently citizens would always improve their income by working. This fact would help to offset the negative effects of a strong pound; thereby creating additional employment opportunities and encouraging new industry. As all citizens would be in receipt of a tangible stake in the national bounty, without systemic impediment to occupation, factors causing the poverty trap would be removed, allowing acceptance of modern occupational choices and opportunities. The concept of an integrated tax system can be implemented in a variety of ways. The following, is an hypothetic, illustration as to how an integrated tax system could effect the disposable income of a range of citizen's. In this illustration, a typical citizen's total disposable income, will comprise of tax credits plus other income, less income tax. Naturally all that Caesar gives, must be returned to him; in due course. Let's say that all of the tax credit monies paid out, are to be recovered purely by means of a 50% income tax rate, upon the first £16,000 of each citizen's yearly earned income. Let us also say that the tax rates upon earnings above £16,000 per year remain as they are now. Under these circumstances, citizens earning £16,000 per year and above would find no change in their total disposable income. Citizens earning less than £16,000 per year would, without taking into account any loss of earnings related benefits, generally gain. Unoccupied citizens would find their total disposable income unchanged. If deemed politically desirable, part of a citizens allowance could be provided for, by way of non negotiable vouchers, covering imposed bills such as, Council rates, water, energy and communication costs. This should reduce the burden currently placed upon the courts to recover such monies. It would be possible within an integrated system to introduce new classes of tax allowance. For example, an occupational allowance could be introduced to cover such items as travel, meals, and clothing, for those citizens that undertake any occupation or venture, paid or unpaid. The benefit to the state of the integrated tax system, is that it will enable citizens to engage in occupations which are currently inappropriate to their circumstances. An integrated tax system, would benefit the health, wealth and lawfulness of society as a whole. The benefit to the citizen, would be, less stress, greater wealth and security, plus greater scope for personal welfare control. The benefit to business, is that low paid jobs, and part time working, would become more affordable. Farming, fishing, manufacturing, the list of what we cannot afford to do, gets longer by the day. Would this approach work in the US. What do you think:confused:

Hi Jim, this is about as short as i could manage. If our exchange of views demonstrates anything at all' date=' it is that the understanding of a few simple sentences of text, is influenced by point of view of the reader.(Note, i include myself as a reader of my own text) Yes. Jim' date=' i know that innocent people get killed in wars. That was one of the many reasons why i lobbied the Iraqi government and others prior the start of the invasion. Though i copied my work to the UK foreign office, i saw no point in lobbying the US or UK government's directly. As soon as Sadam certifiably destroyed his Sud missiles, i believe he was down for the count, and the WMD question could have been resolved without too much violence, if any at all. There is always the option of not starting a war, when the other side is responding positively to the threat of war. Starting a war just to rub some guys face... is not a fine example of civilised behaviour. I certainly do Jim. What i object to, is the implication that Libya wasn't wanting to abandon it's WMD until then. It is a fact that Libya had been making offers to give up it's nuclear program, over a period of four years prior to the Second Gulf War. The offers were for whatever reason not accepted. I suspect that if there had been no second Gulf War, Gaddafi would still be waiting for acceptance of his offers. The timing was thus dictated by the willingness of the US to accept one of Gaddafi's offers. Gaddafi has, admitted his misdeeds and agreed compensation for the victims of Lockerbie and as far as i know others. That does not bring back the dead, or undo the past, or remove the pain that the living bereaved, have to endure. In response to Libya's past actions, we put in place sanctions. Gaddafi has, admitted his misdeeds and agreed compensation for the victims of Lockerbie and as far as i know others. In my opinion those sanctions worked, whereas they don't seem to generally. I think the reason why is that Gaddafi's, despite his flaws, actually cares for his people, and has done everything he could to free them from the suffering, his actions has caused them. I do not know the parental status of his daughter Hanna, she may have been adopted after she was killed during a US bombing in 1986. She is perhaps attack. However, i think her death was for him the final straw. In 1986, Gaddafi's reportedly adopted daughter, Hanna, was killed in the 1986 USAF bombing raid. At a "concert for peace".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Qaddafi Jim' date=' i assure you that to date, i do not think we have done the Iraqi's a favour by carrying out Gulf War 2. In the longer term, there is always hope, and i do hope. :-) Currently outside of the green zone there is mayhem. I've just watched a documentary comparing what you see on your TV over there, with what we see here, and the uncut original. The US version was more sanitised than the UK's, which we were informed is more sanitised than just about anywhere else. The program could only be legally shown after 21:00, i.e when the kids are in bed. Since the war 36,000 Iraqi citizens killed, and rising. More UK personnel killed today, including our forces first female victim. People in the US have lost their kid's too. Life is too precious to be wasted. You believe that Gulf War 2 was necessary, i do not. Our points of view are in this thread. I am happy to agree, to disagree with you on the need for the second invasion of (somebody else's country) Iraq i.e Gulf War 2. From my point of view, there is more than one way to crack an egg. Doing so with military might, doesn't leave the egg in a palatable condition. I hope you are not in the egg business. As i said before,"...America the strongest power on Earth, can't put humpty dumpty back together again.":D I should think Iran has had that ability for years. More worrying, is not knowing whether any radioactive material from post war Iraq, is now in the hands of terrorist or not.

Hi Jim, Just a few lines about your post. I can' date=' in the abstract context of similarities of motivation, method, and purpose. My point was one of empathy. If you don't see anything wrong with the early US herding of people into reservations, you are not likely to empathise with the Palestinians in Gaza or elsewhere, are you. You won't see/perceive/ any moral problem. Morality is subjective, not cast in stone. I think most British people supported it, because Iraq invaded someone else's country, and for once somebody was going to do something about it. The British government, on the other hand, probably committed troops because of our "special relationship with the US". True' date=' but many governments do not go to war, because of uncertainties about future supplies. I cite the recent cuts in the supply of natural gas from Russia. No killing before or after! How far will your government go. What gives the U.S. right to everything it want's without any regard for the people of other countries. Only the might of US military and economic power, no universal-moral-right at all. Yes, you take more heat because US foreign policy often harms ordinary people with apparent indifference(collateral damage (whatever that means)). What goes round comes around. Sorry Jim' date=' but this doesn't work for me at all. It has been quite obvious for some years that Libya was trying to rejoin the fold and put the past behind them. The timing was just a gift to Bush and Blair, nothing more. Jim, about 70 percent of the people of this little island were against the Second Gulf War. Most of those people detested the man Sadam and his regime. The case put to us was, that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. Tony and George's grunted incontrovertible proof and evidence. History has proven the judgement of those of us who believed the evidence amounted to nothing more than fanciful speculations, to have been accurate. Bush openly stated he wanted regime change, which was at least honest. Iraq as you are coming to understand, was held together by the clenched fist of Sadam. The forcible removal of that control was bound to lead to what is happening in Iraq today. America the strongest power on Earth, can't put humpty dumpty back together again. Most ordinary people over here had insight enough to know the likely outcome, in essence if not in detail. If Tony and George were honest in their belief, i am forced to think that, the average English person is a lot wiser than Tony Blair or George Bush and their cohorts in matters of world affairs. :D :D Right. If Iran was really interested in nuking anybody' date=' it would be far easier to get a nuke, or material to make one, from else where, at a fraction of the cost it is going to pay for making it's own. Note, i said "far easier" not easy. I can only guess. All ego stuff really. That the oil under the ground belongs to American oil-men, and that the Iranians stole it when they overthrew the Shah. Also in November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the US embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days. For England the 1980 siege of the Iranian Embassy in London. People remember, and some people are vengeful by nature.

A bit. My favourite program at the time. :D A really good and pretty accurate insight as to how British government ministers work, is a TV comedy series called 'Yes Minister'. Our Tony converted most of the working classes into to the middle classes in his first term. Why not all,.. Because then there would be no one to look down to. In fact our social security system is well suited to keep those at the bottom, down. Look it this way, somebody has to be at the bottom of the pile. If every body got a taste of how it feels the government would be pressured to do something about it. Which they don't want to. So it's better to keep the same people at the bottom all of the time. It also gives the workers somebody to look down to. I agree:-)... Thank you for your other comments, i assure you i feel the same way. I may not show it; but love you all, despite your flaws and despot leaders.(from Apeofman the web-book:eek: )

Hi Jim, sorry to take so long replying to your post. I think you and a few others have worked out that i am trying to get people to think a little bit. My criticism in this forum is bound to be towards American Policy. I would be criticising the Iranians if i could access middle eastern web sites, but it seems that someone is preventing me.(and we moan about the Chinese:D :D ) I am wary of any statements made by any government. English politicians rarely lie but the language they use is clevererly crafted to not reveal what they really mean. I think the American indians call it' date=' talking with a forked tongue. :D Linguistically no, but actions speak louder than words. For example, if you can abstract the situation regarding the settlers of old Palestine, and the way they have displaced the indigenous population. You may see a relationship to the acquisition of America by it's early settlers, and the way they treated and displaced the indigenous population. Even today you still have reservations. Gaza seems no better. There have been proposals that would have the Palestinians living in little land islands scattered throughout the region. What i am saying is that Americans are more likely to empathise with the settlers than the Arab the life of whom they have no experience. I agree. That's understandable. So is America, and that's understandable. Certainly was. I fully supported the first Gulf War' date=' whatever the motivation of the politicians. That's a fine thing say, but surely not in all circumstances. America and other countries often have good Allies, who oppress thier populations, or portions of them. People judge others by the company they keep. America has in the past supported a number of pretty unpleasant characters in pursuit of it's self interest, with little consideration of the flesh and blood ordinary people that do the suffering. You wonder why people don't like American foreign policy? I agree in principle' date=' but with some scope for pragmitism. In the case of Iraq the cease fire was. It's public knowledge that the sanctions hurt/killed a lot of Iraqi people, whilst Sadam and others profited. Something could have been done about that, but wasn't in any real way. Yes. Off the top of my head...America, Russia, China, England, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and we are led to believe Israel, have developed Nuclear Weapons. Does it come as a suprise to you if Iranians or anybody else find the righteous rhetoric being used to whip us up ready for the action, HIPPOCRITIC.Did i leave any country out. I don't communicate with your intelligence people these days, so i don't. However New Scientist 29 April page 10.. But both sides are guity of exaggeration and "vacuous political posturing, argues a report from the Center for Stategic and International Studies, a Washington DC think tank. quoting IAEA officials,ISIS says although Iran may now have built 1345 centrifuges, more thn half of them are not engineered well enough to operate in cascades. Iran does aim to install a lot more, 50,000. In the short term, a lot less.3,000 So do i' date=' but i have even less confidence about your President's underlying motives than i have in Tony Blair. If 10 is high confidence, i rate Tony as zero. Seem's a wise idea to know your enemy. You'll find a lot of useful stuff about Iran and it's people here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/790877.stm You can download radio interviews, and discussions. The BBC World Service is a great source of information. There are a lot of good things i could say about America, but that wouldn't help you. Bye for now.

I agree with your point, i see it all the time. All else i have to say on the matter was posted in my reply to John. Evil is a weasel word, only of subjective meaning, there is a thread on it somewhere in the forum. I presume that was a sardonic joke. :D You wanna try out being a white middle class Englishman for a while.

Thank's John. Seem's i have a few posts to answer today. Not sure if i'm well enough to get them all done. Hope so. Pessimistic? Don't worry' date=' if i was just pessimistic, i wouldn't have made my original post. I agree entirely. Glad you said, "seemed to oversimplify", shows you think. In my daily life i'm quite pragmatic, and am by no means a saint. When i was young, for reasons of nature and nurture, it was my belief that i should treat others as they would treat me. I was not a nice person to come across. As time went by i started to reap the rewards of my viewpoint, money, friends, and status. Boy was I right. Well actually no. Eventually the other rewards of my philosophy started to pour in. Being aware of this i had to examine every aspect myself, and my relationships with other people. Something i still do. I had to sort out to what extent my woes were due to me and how much was due to the people i associated with those woes. As a result i changed my philosophy and attitude towards people. I can only say that as a survival strategy, it seem's to serve my own self-interest well. I hope you see the pertinence of the above, to the topic. They certainly do. That Hamas decided to cease fire, gave me some hope of progress. When Hamas won the Palestinian elections i was as surprised as anyone else. Of course it was denounced by Israel for obvious reasons. However, i did hope that they would recognise an opportunity to encourage their enemy towards dialogue rather than violence. Unfortunately, they think it better to try and get rid of Hamas by making life of ordinary Palestinians even more miserable than it is already. Maybe that will work, but it can hardly be expected to bring a peaceful solution any nearer. It is easy to understand the feelings that dictate the Israeli position, and i maintain they are entitled to respond that way if they want. However, i am disappointed because it will not resolve the situation. The people of Israel together with the Palestinian people will continue to live in fear of one another, and that inevitably leads to paranoia and more killing. I don't think that is what the average Israeli or Palestinian wants. However my opinion of the involvement of other countries is different. I hope this reply clarifies a few things as to my perspective.

Hi Jim, I guess my viewpoint begs such a question. Generally. That the Middle East and Persia are not America, and it's inhabitants are not American Indians, ready to be confined to reservation camps. That most people in the Middle East would prefer to get on with living a normal life without hinderance. That there will be no peace in the Middle East whilst the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy continues. Any solution there must maintain the dignity of both Israeli and Palestinian citizens. That putting the squeeze on people weaker than yourself, is an act of bullying/extortion that has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. I could go on, but it is really a waste of time, because the die is set and nobody is going to be reasonable under the prevailing circumstances. The best i can suggest off the cuff...From a premise based on what the US actually knows about Iran's actual nuclear capacity and abilities, rather than the hype of the current US President's administration... Glad you didn't ask how to resolve the US/Iran squabble. I tend to give more thought about how to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy. There is one way to make a start on that, but it requires good will. I don't know if my answer about 'premise' is of much use to you Jim. Maybe something else will occur to me later. Time to take my pain killers and get some sleep.

Of course that would suit us, because we could continue to treat them as we do. However, Iraq got rid of their Sud missiles in front of UN inspectors just prior to America and it's cohorts invaded. I don't think Iran is going to make the same mistake. Or do you think they are stupid enough to comply with our demands that they remain defenseless in a world of Yahoo politics and bully war-mongers. I am fairly certain that we will invade Iran just as soon as our political leaders can, because they can.

Thank you for your response John. Before i give an answer to your question, i would like to point out that it was the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who made the caustic statement about wiping Israel off the map, not Iran as such. That is why i used George Bush in my like-for-like question, rather than the US. By the way John, do not be too impressed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's title of president. According to wikipedia... In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Iran... 'Iran' itself has persistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. This is your question. I would not like it. However i am long in tooth, and persuaded by experience, not to respond to my feelings in the same way as when i was a child at school. Taking into account that we have the capability to render Germany uninhabitable and that Germany does not have nuclear weapons. In no particular order.. In the given situation, there is no immediate danger of nuclear attack. The possibility of a conventional or terrorist attack would remain of course, and a quiet review of our defence capability would be in order. I wouldn't embark on a policy of exaggerating the danger of a nuclear attack from Germany. When i hear our leaders exaggerated rhetoric over the nonexistent Iranian bomb, i am reminded of the British school bully, looking for a reason to attack an almost always weaker victim. There is in my opinion, only one way for a victim to reason with a bully-boy and that is to fight back. Even if you loose and get hurt you'll get no more hassle. (i went to thirteen different schools in two countries.) Privately, I would suspend my self-interested position, and consider how the situation had developed to the point that such declarations were being made. To do that properly i would start on the premise that each side is seeing things from their own point of view, and each view point can be equally true. I would only be able to think about how to resolve the situation peacefully after such consideration. There may, or may not be an acceptable peaceful solution, but if i have to kill someone i hope it is because i am defending myself, rather than because of some disrespectful provocation by myself. To my statement.. You say.. I wonder of whom you refer. We Apes have been given the advice of wise apes throughout the ages as to how a better life may be achieved. I ape of man, ape of no religion, party; cult or occult; reiterates this wisdom as the basis for fearless universal self and mutual respect. By date, Confucius of the Chinese, Jesus of the Christians, Hillel of the Jews, and Mohammed of Islam, each gave you this same advice. i call it 'The Simple Law' by which all beings can live. Treat other apes, as you would wish to be treated by other apes. Fearless respect for another Apes' perception of G-d is an implicit example of the application of this advice. Neither command nor deceive an Ape to do what you would not do yourself. (Apeofman the web-book) Now that's a very hard thing to comply with, and very few really try to. After all we are all programmed to satisfying our own immediate self interest and considering the rights of other people, often get's in the way of that. Doesn't it:rolleyes: . Experience tells me that my answer will not satisfy your sensibilities or modify your view. Sorry:-(

Sorry my mistake, my thoughts were based on effects of The General Theory of Relativity. If i had been more attentive to redading the thread leading to worhole's question it would have been apparant that wormhole wanted an answer based on Special Relativity. In the Special Theory of Relativity, the velocity of the light itself is uninfluenced by the velocity or any other physical property of it's source. Any change of velocity between an observer and light source alters the wave length and hence frequency of the light with respect to that observer, not the observed/measured velocity.

Thank you for the reply Luke. I agree with you. I agree so far. However you say.. shouldn't that read,.. "B" can't observe/measure "A" to be moving away from "B" at a velocity greater than the velocity of light c. Otherwise yes. In fact i posted a link in this thread to a calculator that uses geometry (my avatar is the result of one such calculation) to solve the addition of relativistic velocities problem and others. The results are in accord with using the Lorentz transforms.