Adelbert_Einstein Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 (edited) I deleted the topic. Edited February 18, 2022 by Adelbert_Einstein
CharonY Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 ! Moderator Note I see no biological science in that OP. The topic is moved to speculations and OP is requested to provide evidence for their assertions. If none are delivered and this post remains a blog style, it will be locked.
Phi for All Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 34 minutes ago, Adelbert_Einstein said: The topic may seem wholesomely strange. The topic is fine. The problem is your approach to discussing it. 34 minutes ago, Adelbert_Einstein said: Einstein's theory comes into play. The picture of global governance is like a trampoline, or a slinky. Einstein's theories had nothing to do with either biology or politics. You're projecting one analogy Einstein used onto a situation where it's not appropriate. Analogies have very discrete and limited application. The trampoline analogy isn't even a good one for gravity, and confuses lots of people. 37 minutes ago, Adelbert_Einstein said: COVID-19 affected many points of the trampoline of global governance. Economy, envioronment, medical, socio-ethnic, and many more. The global trampoline is in full sway. And to stop it in it's course, a massive change is called for. An equal and opposite change that will recreate the trampoline as it once was. Only world war three can do that. This is what I mean. This is a False Dilemma. There are other situations that can cause change on the level you're talking about. You're basing your argument on something demonstrably false. There are other globe-affecting phenomena besides war, like severe weather or contact from off-world or even a global pandemic. Then you assume a world war will be a great thing, ushering in a new era of stability. How has that worked out for many of the world's war-torn countries? When you make assertions like this, you need to back them up with evidence, or state them so they're obviously your opinion. Or you could start by asking some questions, get some people interested in DISCUSSING this with you, rather than trying to preach or blog at us. So far, your science isn't at the level where you should be drawing conclusions without a LOT of outside input. This is the part where you're supposed to discuss your ideas with peers to make sure they can stand a rigorous beating. 1 hour ago, Adelbert_Einstein said: I deleted the topic. Well, when you can handle forum discussion and tough questions about your arguments, start another thread.
Recommended Posts