MigL

China is the biggest 'producer' in the world. North America and Europe ( all democracies ) are the biggest 'consumers' in the world. IIRC, China suffered economically worse than North America did, when we stopped'buying' in 2008-9. Mastering the use of the long bow is a lot simpler than carrier landings in bad weather/rough seas, with an engine out, with wreckage on the deck, etc. Here's an assessment by JayinKitsap on another forum I belong to ... "Logistics is the key, for example, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would take a huge number of landing craft. If a 50 person landing craft is used, the first wave of 5,000 marines would take 100 craft, each added wave of 5,000 probably needs another 30 craft to cover a 30% loss. So getting 25,000 to shore the 1st day would gobble up 220 landing craft to execute the 1st day. These in turn would need 20 transports to get 25,000 to shore. Day 2 would be better but losses would consume 150 added landing craft and a 2nd batch of 20 transports. Likely 60 transports and like 500 landing craft to get 5K troops ashore each day. Supplies to the shore is minimal the 1st day, growing fast each day. How to transport all the men and equipment across the 100 mile Strait, then bring to shore would be a huge challenge. Each landing invasion in WWII really taxed the system, with huge lessons learned from every one. After several dozen landings they started to get the things to run smoothly." One idea which has been suggested is to park the aircraft carrier to the East of Taiwan, splitting Taiwan's coastal and AAM defenses between two opposing targets, but, as it is, their aircraft carrier is virtually useless in this situation. Sorry Dim. Don't know why forum software merged my answer with my previous post after you had already replied. Oh, I see ...

The only difference between China and Russia is that China actually has money to build things like their new aircraft carrier. It will however, take them some time to develop the skill set the Americans have with 80 years of operating carrier battle groups and the logistics involved in such operations. If you think Russia has failed miserably with the invasion of neighboring Ukraine, wait till you see the logistical disaster it would be, trying to invade Taiwan across 100 mi. of ocean. If China totally destroys the island, the world will turn against them. If they try to take it with as little destruction and bloodshed as possible, they will fail even worse than the Russians have fared.

People who are unconfortable with the notion of time always claim that time depends on the 'motion of something', because we can only measure it that way. They fail to realize that motion depends on time, and, without time you cannot define motion of anything ( including vibrations ). We have classical Galilean mechanics, which is highly effective where applicable, but sometimes its use becomes quite cumbersome. As Swansont pointed out with his 'ball thrown up in the air' example, we can use Lagrangian mechanics in a conservative gravitational field, to simplify our calculations, without taking things to the most fundamental level of x,y,z, and t. Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics help simplify matters, but in applications where relativistic effects become dominant, energy treatments ( because energy is frame dependent ) also become untractable ( maybe not for Markus, but certainly for me ). There are many concepts, other than energy,we also use to 'simplify' our calculations; velocity, momentum, phase, etc. but fundamentally, they all depend on the configuration of x, y, z, and t.

As it is impossible to entangle six hunderd billion trillion molecules ( in one mole ) with the same wavefunction, self interaction must also be considered in the collapse, not just the surroundings.

It used to be the case that people ran for office based on their accomplishments, but since the advent of 'attack' ads during elections, more and more people are running for office based on the faults and 'warts' of their adversaries. Some of us are old enough to remember when being a 'populist' was a good thing. It meant you represented all people/constituents, even the rabble and 'deplorables', not just the elite who think they know beetter than others. The 'new' connotation is vastly different. If TheVat is correct ( usually is about American Politics and history ) that would mean D Trump governed in the Jeffersonian tradition by "exercising of leadership, offering people a broad vision and educating them on a range of issues so they can more clearly see" ... the craziness.

space and time are the independent variables. Energy is not independent. The 'configuration of a system' is the very definition of energy.

Energy is frame dependent. IOW, it depends on spatial-temporal co-ordinates, or dimensions.

If I could, I would give your post many +1s, Markus. Unfortunately kba is so 'obsessed' with his pet idea, that it'll be totally disregarded by him.

A nicely marbled ribeye steak never falls apart on the BBQ ...

We also have a 'first past the post' system in Canada, and vote splitting has been a concern in the past. It led to the unification of our two Conservative parties, and has been mentioned with respect to our NDP ( socialist ) and Liberal parties. In our case, the Governor General ( historically a representative of the Queen ) could decide to give power to two losing parties, if the winning party lost Confidence of Parliament in a minority situation. This obviously would not work in American Government. The proportional representation method has been talked about, but only when parties lose an election; if they win all the talk is discontinued. ( Liberals, two elections ago ) this system also has major problems. Witness Italy, whose Government is usually made up of at least 4 parties, and which regularly falls every 6 months to a year. I would like to see an upper age limit on running for the Presidency. Even if set at 65, typical retirement age, winning two terms would make the President 73 years old; already a little high. Maybe 62 ?

We don't really know the mechanism for accelerated expansion, as dark energy is still 'dark', so making guesses as to how it would change, if at all, in the future is pointless. Nor are we sure that the 'standard candle' ( type 1A supernova, when a white dwarf star accretes enough material from a companion star to initiate carbon burning in its core, resulting in an explosion of known luminosity ) is accurate enough to set our distance scale. All we know is that measurements of the Hubble Constant seem to have an increasing slope, indicating an acceleration of recession speeds.

Probably put there by the same aliens who placed the Tycho Magnetic Anomaly One ( TMA-1 or Tycho Monolith ) on the Moon, that was discovered by the Odissey mission in 2001, led by A C Clarke.

A mile wide mirror in Earth orbit would capture about as much as a mile width of area on the surface of the Earth. hardly enough additional heat to cause climate change. ( maybe local weather change, at best )

The 'error bars' on the rate of recession are large enough as to make determining the change in recession rate very difficult ( and possibly still ambiguous ) due to the large numbers of extremely distant observations, where distance scales could still be in question. Now you want to know the rate of change of the changing rate of recession, or acceleration of the acceleration ? I don't think anyone knows that, but they do know that recession rate wasn't always accelerating, so, while not quantified yet, there has obviously been a change.

I hear the Nobel people at your door ringing the doorbell ... NOT ! Theories don't explain the 'nature; of anything. They are a mathematical ( usually ) model of how a mechanism/process works. They would say you are wrong again; the moon is not a star, and neither is 'everything in the sky'.

If the 'down' quark contributed 'excess' mass to the neutronium in neutron stars, you would expect ordinary matter, with an excess of neutrons to be heavier. He4 has two protons and two neutrons for a mass ( isotope ) of 4.0026 Da. Li4, an unstable isotope of lithium, has three protons and one neutron, for a mass of 4.037 Da. The Helium nucleus contains 6 'down' quarks,while the Lithium nucleus has 5 'down' quarks. Yet, the Lithium is heavier. The explanation is simple. Most of the mass in a nucleus is binding energy, and the individual quarks ( if you could isolate one ) although of slightly differing masses, only contribute a couple of percent of the masses of protons and neutrons. Don't get me wrong, an imagination is invaluable, but temper it with some education of accepted knowledge.

"There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't." unattributed quote

It isn't. Infinity is not a number.

You could try posting the general idea here, and see how it fares with the criticism of accepted science.

You have to wonder when people like S Spicer are going to realize that all their ass-kissing, and bowing at the altar of D Trump, will never get them anything. The very first time they have a difference of opinion, no matter how small, with D Trump, he will turn on them and try to ruin them, just as he has done with all the other 'useful idiots' during his previous administration. Do these arguably intelligent people actually believe the shit they are spewing for the 'orange clown's benefit ? Or are they doing it in the hope of some personal gain in the midterm, or next Presidential elections ? Can the short term gain be worth the ruin of a political carreer ? ( apparently a lot of Republicans think so )

Mass presupposes an instantaneity while electromagnetism does enegry in motion – two separate instances; as it were, which is first, the chicken or the egg? In the context of our local circumstances I could say it’s their combined effect under the auspices of instantaneity, can gravity be adduced. Please don't attribute quotes to me that were, in fact, posted by kba. Quote the original post please, not a quote of a quote. Thank you. I don't know what any of your post is supposed to mean. Mass and energy are both equivalent properties of a system; energy is the property that allows for changing the configuration of the system, and do work, while mass, the property that resists change in the configuration of the system, is responsible for inertia. No chickens or eggs involved.

It would be much simpler to model/sum gravitational potentials.

Sure. We'll throw out all observational evidence from the last 90 years, and make up stuff so that your theory is valid. \\\\astronomers say cosmological red shift is very different from gravitational red shift. And, that you are totally wrong !

Even if I could understand what you mean by 'electromagnetic field represented inside particles as mass', I don't need to answer why a 'free-form' electromagnatic field doesn't generate gravity. Because it DOES !

Maintaining speed, in the absence of extraneous forces, requires no energy.