Apeofman

It would keep everyone busy just figuring out the rules.

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.

But I doubt anyone would allow the fate of their country to be decided by a game. The loser would claim the winner cheated and they would attack.

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.

Of course, I think I would HATE living in a perfect world.

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?

The observer is simply someone who sits around and watches two light beams aproach each other (a third entity if you wish to see it like that). What might have confused you is that in this case "watching an object" does not mean that some light emitted from that object hits your eye but that the object has the respective coordinates in the observers frame or reference. The additional problem that to visually see something it must emit light which must reach your eye is usually not considered in relativistic toy-problems like this one.

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.

"Observers" don't actually have to be little people sitting there with stop watches and space suits. It's a thought experiment...

 

...We're sitting in the frame of the image while this is going on. A is moving at c left. B is moving at c right.

 

C has horizontal velocity equal to B' date=' and therefore must be moving horizontally (from A's point of view) at c as well.

 

C also has a vertical component of motion, however, and therefore will have a total relative velocity of greater than c.

 

This is not an actual object going greater than c, of course, so that's ok.

 

 

 

Yes, because each rest frame is equally valid.[/quote']

 

The point i made was about JaKiri's use of the relativistic velocity addition equation.

If you have two things going towards eachother' date=' at speeds a and b, the speed at which they approach eachother (in a reference frame moving along with one of them) is given by (a+b)/(1+(ab/c^2)). "Momentum is always <C" is meaningless,..

[/quote']

a and b are stated to be the speeds of approaching objects. There is no mention of what these speeds are or relate to. I could assume that a and b are the velocities of aproaching light beams. But JaKiri was responding to ...

so when the two momentums are added together and converted back, some how the momentum tells us that 0.5c + 0.5c = 0.8c

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 ..

If you have two things going towards eachother' date=' at speeds a and b, the speed at which they approach eachother (in a reference frame moving along with one of them) is given by (a+b)/(1+(ab/c^2)).

[/quote']

... make one of the two objects the reference frame (let's say the object is a), which raises the question as to what frame of reference the velocity of b relates to, in order to justify using the equation cited.

 

Jakari now state's..

C also has a vertical component of motion, however, and therefore will have a total relative velocity of greater than c.

..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

No' date=' SR states that all velocities are relative to observers, each of which are equally valid, and there is no medium to be relative against (no aether).

 

 

 

If you have two things going towards eachother, at speeds a and b, the speed at which they approach eachother (in a reference frame moving along with one of them) is given by (a+b)/(1+(ab/c^2)). "Momentum is always <C" is meaningless, I'm afraid.

 

Interactions can take place faster than c, for example if you had two stiff rods in an X shape, moving <- and ->. If they had a recession speed of c, the place where they cross would move faster than c.[/quote']

Excuse me, but i am a little confused as to whom the observer is in this thread.

 

If the observers are sitting on the beams they would see nothing of each other until they meet in the middle.

 

Also, if you are going to use either a or b as a reference frame then it's velocity is 0c in the equation you cite.

i'm confused, how does doppler shifting work if light continues at c regardless of the velocity of the thing emitting it?

Hi Rocket Man,

• 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.

  
  

I'm curious how I'd be received these days' date=' looking like the typical American as I do (much as ecoli described!).

[/quote']

Hi Pangloss,

You'd be welcome in England. Any percieved Anti-Americanism is really reserved for George Bush specifically, and American Foreign Policy generally.

 

If you do come over, drop in for coffee.

I don't mean to deride you personally' date=' but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't trust it. Or perhaps more to the point, I don't trust the government to implement it or the politicians not to exploit it. And even if it worked as you say, it doesn't stop the problem of politicians promising wealths of riches to the underpriviledged without them having to work.

 

In fairness, though, I don't really understand your proposal fully, and I really don't know anything about your current system, so maybe I'm just lacking the proper perspective here.[/quote']

Hi Pangloss,

Nothing wrong in being suspicious of an apparent panacea. The point you raised is a valid one, but it doesn't really apply to the scheme as proposed.

 

I totally agree with your distrust of politicians, and their promises of riches to the underprivileged. I should add in my case,.. or anything else either. I'm a most irreverent ape.

 

I do not know a lot about the US tax system, and only posted the Xat proposal, as i had recently heard the American guy's proposal for the USA. I guess it is not well publicised over there.

 

There is a potential cost to implement the scheme, but also a potential profit.

 

In my limited experience, people generally want to make more money than they do, and without institutional hinderance they will, whenever they can.

Just another form of welfare. What's the point? All you're doing is elevating the level of "what we pay people who don't work"' date=' whatever you happen to want to call it this week.

[/quote']

I don't think you noticed..

 

[center']Unoccupied citizens would find their total disposable income unchanged. [/center]

 

What you ought to focus on instead is pointing out that while helping people get out of poverty is a good thing' date=' it's not the onus of society to enable you to keep up with the Joneses.[/quote']

 

The only way someone can keep up with the "Joneses" under Xat is by working.

 

In the UK we have an existing benefit system. Since the Labour Party took office 1997, increases in benefit payments have been below inflation, and well below average wage increases. The proposal only affects those who enter employment, and those existing workers who would be better off on benefits.

 

It seem's wrong to me that someone who works in low paid employment should be worse off than someone on benefits. The government has introduced a system of tax credits to overcome the poverty trap we have in the UK. However it creates a dis incentive to low paid workers to increase their income. (Why do overtime if you will loose more in benefits.) At present the Tax credits are only available to certain categories of people. There have also been some administrative problems with it's implementation.

 

Our system is quite complicated and i do not like generalising. However, I personally know of a case, where the husband has become an invalid, and receives invalidity payments (which are not as punitive as unemployment, or incapacity benefits). Finding that they had difficulty in supporting themselves on this alone, his wife took on a part time job raising £60 per week. This resulted in a reduction of benefits which left them £15 per week worse off than when she did not work. She no longer works.

If we look at the tax code, it is extremely complicated for the average person, with very little of it geared toward the middle class. The complexity is useful in the sense that it create a wide range of jobs, tax middlemen to help people make sense of it. ..

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.

Would this approach work in the US. What do you think:confused:

Hi Jim, this is about as short as i could manage.

I"m going to try to narrow the debate back down. I had misunderstood the point you were making about American Indian reservations.... It really does have nothing to do with this debate.

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)

THe question of the day is Iran.

Yes.

..."what went wrong." Fundamentally' date=' middle eastern problems are the fault of those who live in those

countries. It is so tempting to blame everything on the United States but seems

condescending to those who live in the countries with problems.

[/quote']

Jim, If the subject on your mind here is Iran, the impression i get, is that they want to sort their own problems out, without hinderance from evangelic outsiders. Particularity when they are waving sticks, and calling the code by which they live their lives as inferior.

 

Do this, do that, you must comply, or I will smack your.... Excuse me! The people of Iran have as much right to be treated with respect as the people of America. Yes, their president has vocalised his dis-respect for Israel, and America. What goes round comes around, and there is a lot of disrespect from all of the parties concerned the US, Iran, and others. One wrong does not justify another.

 

If there is to be peace and harmony, all sides have got to stop this very childish behaviour NOW!

 

Ape of Man say's,

Don't follow my way's for my sake, make a new path for your own sake. We all make mistakes, that's part of our lot, if you want a better future, stop knocking the other lot. Or there'll be a meeting in the parking lot.

Get wise, follow the simple law: Treat other people, as you would want to be treated. With fearless respect.

 

Oh' date=' I hardly think so.

[/quote']

What do you think George's body language was saying then? (maybe the TV shot we got was different from over there)

What on earth are you talking about? The US did everything it could to limit collateral

damage....

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.

Do you even allow for the possiblity that Libya simply abandoning its WMD program has

something to do with the US going to war, in part, over the WMD issue in Iraq?....

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

My more basic point point is why the moral indigantion about the war if you admit that we

did the Iraqi's a favor?...we destroyed a repressive regime and gave

an entire people a chance at freedom....

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

... One real worry is whether Iran has the ability right now to turn over a dirty bomb to terrorists.

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.

If you are going to impute bad motives to a US President and a British PM' date=' shouldn't you

have a plausible theory.... if we had refused to

control Sadam's, there is no doubt he would have acquired WMDs at some point in the future.

[/quote']

You asked,"What do you see as his motives?". I do not have the ability to read other peoples mind's so cannot provide hard evidence to support a theory. In my reply i said, i was guessing. I believe, that the, by no means full list, of suggested events that may, or may not have been, underlying "motives". As to, "he would have acquired WMDs at some point in the future." Maybe, maybe not. The amount of resources a country puts into weaponry is proportional to the level of paranoia it feels.":-)

 

What worries me is George and Tony's punish them before they do it philosophy. I am not a prophet, and neither are they. For what it worth, it is also an anti-Christian philosophy.

Heh' date=' agreed.

[/quote']

I've mainly limited myself here to some of the points you raised, in your post. Each position is valid in it's own way and i am happy to let others judge for themselves. I reckon you and i will have to agree to disagree. Right Jim:confused:

Hi Jim,

Just a few lines about your post.

Your initial point was that “the Middle East and Persia are not America' date=' and its inhabitants are not American Indians, ready to be confined to reservation camps.” In this post you seem to say that there is a relationship between America’s treatment of the native Americans and current foreign policy and you make the point that “even today you still have reservations.”

[/quote']

 

Here an apology is in order. After re-reading my post afresh," Even today you still have reservations. Gaza seems no better." I can see that it is sloppy English and does not convey precisely what i had in mind when i wrote it. Also i think, that most English people (rather than Americans) would understand "seem's no better" as meaning "seem's the same or worse".

 

Perhaps it should have read..

"...the way they treated and displaced the indigenous population into reservations. Gaza seem's the same or worse. Even today you still have reservations. ( albeit no where near as bad as Gaza"..i'd rather like to edit the original if that's acceptable.

 

The relationship that i as a individual see, is an abstract similarity between the settling of America, and the settling of Israel. In both cases the indigenous populations were faced with settlers who saw the native wandering way of life as inferior/uncivilised and in the way. (at least that's the impression i get from earlier US film footage)

 

The settlers in both cases displaced the indigenous populations because they wanted the land, and had the power to do so. In both cases the indigenous populations fought back, but were defeated.(OK i know there are still Palestinians who don't realise that violence against civilians doesn't win you friends. The same can be said of Israel.).

 

Before i go on, i would like to point out that i have a lot of sympathy/empathy for both sides of the Israeli, Palestinian conflict. I am not in the business of criticising either party as regards what they do to each other...that's their mutual choice. That doesn't mean that i like it. I don't, and am often distressed by the psychopathic behaviour exhibited by both sides. I support the aspirations of both sides and hope/pray/wish they can one day realise and appreciate the others point of view, despite their very personal pains. I cannot support the aspirations of one side in preference to the other, that's a personal position. Any criticism i have of their policies, is strictly between that which drives me, and both of them.

First' date=' you completely misunderstand Americas current treatment of native Americans.

[/quote']

How do you draw that conclusion Jim:confused: I have said nothing about the current treatment of native Americans.

 

I have native American ancestry and am fully integrated into American culture. If my great-great grandmother had not hidden from the Dawes commission census takers I would have a roll number as a Creek Indian. In college' date=' I dearly wished that she had not hidden as there would have been quite a few benefits coming my way.

[/quote']

I understand and respect your wish to be what you are..An American. From what you have written before, i am sure you also respect your great-great grandmother's right to do what she did, in the response to what must have been a very distressing for her.

 

 

More to the point' date=' no native American is “even today” forced to live on a reservation. By treaty they have established legal rights and some degree of separateness which they value and exploit to a degree with Casinos and smoke shops.

[/quote']

I do not know enough about the live's of modern Indians, living on current reservations, to comment. (Do smoke shops have something to do with peace-pipes. )

 

With all sincere respect to you' date=' it is not fair to equate current policy to the manner in which this continent was settled by Europeans. The simple truth is that in every instance where civilizations clashed war erupted. The winner was typically the culture with better technology, which was open to dissent and discussion in the conduct of the war and which carried germs cultivated from denser urban centers. There is nothing uniquely American about the Western dominance of the Americas.

[/quote']

I agree with your simple truth. However, most modern British people in England tend to distance themselves's from the attitudes and actions of their fore-fathers.

 

I guess there are several contexts to which my abstraction could be viewed from. I hope all government's, consider a range of policies before making a decision as to which to follow. Ranging from the benign to the psychopathic, that's a practice that i see as sensible.

 

Over here, the more psychopathic ones get leaked to the public, if the government is showing serious signs of choosing such an option. You've recently had a leak about nuking Iran. Bush's body language when he denied the possibility, looked like some who had been caught out with his trousers down.:D I think our Tony's a more astute actor.

 

Quote:

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.

 

You really can't compare the Palestinian situation to American Indian reservations?

 

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 don't think the motivations were a mystery: Sadam invaded a strategically important US ally.

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".

 

No' date=' I have many times said that the difference here was that this ally was strategically important.

[/quote']

Most British people supported the first Gulf War because we don't like people invading other peoples/folks countries, not because we have something to gain from it. The British Empire is history, and on the whole we prefer it that way.

 

A president or prime minister doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the simple fact that we have a carbon based economy.

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.

 

We take more heat because we are a superpower. Say what you will, but Bush is almost idealistic in his defence of democracy. It may have us wishing for the old days but I'm not so sure.

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.

 

What is the practical problem?.....Over a twelve year period we continued to insist on compliance in a very open and public manner. Even as we built up to enforce the terms' date=' Sadam did not come clean. We then did what we said we were going to do.

[/quote']

Yes indeed.

 

 

On legal' date=' moral and public policy grounds, this seems like the only course of action. If we are going to put American and British boots on the ground as we did in Gulf War I and then settle the conflict, we have to insist on compliance.

[/quote']

Yes indeed. However in the case of sanctions, it seem's to me that it was public knowledge that Sadam and those he did business with profited and the Iraqi people suffered. Some will say that was Sadam's fault, to me that's a typical "pass the bucket" excuse for doing nothing.

 

If a policy does not work, modify it so it does the job. If it can't be modified, abandon it and put something else in place. At least, that's the gist of my opinion on that particular matter.

 

The resolution of President Bush and PM Blair in Iraq and Afghanistan has already caused Libya to derail a nuclear program which was more advanced than was once thought.

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.

 

Instead of being on the outside wondering if Sadam had WMDS or whether he would reconstitute that program, we have taken him out.

 

In the process, we gave an entire country an opportunity for liberty. We've led them to this water. Whether they drink is up to them. I simply do not see how foreign countries can condemn the US or Britain for removing Sadam. The only reasonable criticisms of this policy are from a US perspective, primarily that we showed again the limits of US power. That is my deepest concern about the endeavour.

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

 

This hardly inspires confidence. The plain fact is that we cannot be too sure. Libya's nuclear program was much more advanced than we had thought. Intel is giveth and it taketh away.

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.

 

What do you see as his motives?

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.

 

..."the shah's overthrow by Muslim clerics would lead not to social improvement and democracy but to theocracy' date=' intolerance and clerically controlled mayhem."....

[/quote']

From what i've seen over the years i can agree on the "theocracy, intolerance and clerically controlled mayhem." bits.

 

I think the people will force reform of the system when they want to, as happens else where. Sanctions, or air strikes, may in my view unite them as 'Iranians' against the aggressor whom ever that might be.

 

Forceful interference by dictating foreigners, will in my view, turn them against our governments, if not our people's.

 

Phew! Me thinks, our replies are getting too long winded.

 

Bye for now Jim;)

I learned everything I know about middle class Englishmen from watching Monty Python. That's an accurate portrayal, right?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on much of your argument. But I do think we have some common ground:

1) The west/US is at least partly to blame for the current political situation in the Middle East and w/ Iran. (We might also agree that they are also responsible for their own behavior.)

 

2) War is not a desirable course of action.

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'm not sure if you believe Iran's statements that they have no intention to develop nuclear weapons. These statements to me have no weight.

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.

No one has made such a claim.

: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.

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and all that followed had nothing to do with Palestinian/Israeli tensions.

I agree.

Iraq was (and Iran now is) trying to assert power over the region's oil resources.

That's understandable. So is America, and that's understandable.

Exactly. Iraq's invasion of the weaker Kuwait was bullying/extortion.

Certainly was. I fully supported the first Gulf War' date=' whatever the motivation of the politicians.

Democracies do sometimes defend allies and..

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?

..then insist on the enforcement of the resulting cease fire.

The prevailing circumstances being the development by Iran of a peaceful nuclear program?

Did i leave any country out.

How do you know that what the President is saying isn't exactly what he is being told by the intel community?

I don't communicate with your intelligence people these days, so i don't.

I've already posted that I think most of us in the public lack essential information to assess what the US ought to do. I hope the president gets good advice and takes it one step at a time.

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.

The thing that I don't get about this position, which is very common, is that people who espouse it seem to miss the fact that they're performing exactly the very evil that they accuse others of performing.

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.

By just blame everything on Americans, nobody else has to take any responsibility for their behavior. No matter how eggregious the sin, it MUST be the west's fault somehow. (Or more specifically, whenever possible, white male[/i'] Americans, because they're the worst of the lot, right?)

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.

Why so pessimistic? Do we have to goto War so quickly?

Pessimistic? Don't worry' date=' if i was just pessimistic, i wouldn't have made my original post.

Actually, I may agree with you more than you think, however, I responded because you seemed to oversimplify the situation IMO. I could say 'Love your enemies', etc. which sounds good, if you are bent on going to heaven, not if you are trying to survive in a hostile world. I think this is a bigger issue for the countries around Iran and that Russia and China would be better at working with them, but they are not ready for Prime Time just yet.

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.

Yes, Palestinians need to give up violence and get on with their lives.

Yes, Palestinians need to give up violence and get on with their lives.

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.

Therefore, US policy should proceed from what premise?

Hi Jim, I guess my viewpoint begs such a question.

Iran is in a completely different posture than was Iraq. Iraq invaded a strategically important US ally and lost. The US then stopped short of demanding outright surrender but did impose' date=' among other things, the requirement that Saddam disclose the status of his WMDS. Saddam agreed to these requirements which were then incorporated into UN resolutions.

 

Saddam could have easily made his destruction and/or transportation of the WMDs transparent and avoided any risk of war. His failure to come clean over twelve years and even as US forces began to build up as an obvious prelude to invasion is just further evidence of a self-destructive irrationality. It's not quite as foolish as his having invaded Kuwait in the first place or then attempted to assassinate a former US president but it's damn close.

 

Iran is at the beginning of this process. To make this analogous, we'd have to have an agreement from Iran coupled with years of UN resolutions. We'd have to have direct action by Iran against a US ally, a war fought that Iran loses, agreements entered that are then violated and a willful failure to abide by the agreements even to the point of self-destructive irrationality.

 

As much as Iran scares me, it has not yet come close to Saddam's self-destructive irrationality.[/quote']

 

Mostly i agree with what you have said. However, if you were Sadam and knew that your military strength was weakened (albeit his own fault ). You might well see some sense in encouraging the idea that you have WMD, as a deterrent to those hostile to you. By the way, has anybody actually seen any Israeli Nuclear missiles. I understand they are launching a "spy satellite" into a geo-stationary position over Iran. (ref bbc world service news). I wonder why:confused:

If Iran's interests are only in "peaceful energy" then perhaps they should stop work on their 6,000km range ICBMs like the Shahab-6...

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.

'Iran' itself has persistently denied seeking nuclear weapons.

This is your question.

How would you like it if Germany said that Britain should be wiped off the face of the earth, and were showing a renewed interest in building nuclear weapons, for defense of course.

To my statement..

It seem's to me that if you want a peaceful world, treat other people as you wish to be treated. Or maybe you like war.

You say..

I think someone preached that a long time ago..., what ever happened to him?

I wonder of whom you refer.

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:-(

I don't know quite what you are trying to say but no matter what speed the light bulb is moving away or towards you the light will always come towards you at c. This is all a fundemental part of Special Relativity.

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.

I think this is a hypothetical question' date=' regarding

the lightbulb moving at c.[/quote']

I think your light bulb would gain so much mass that it's light would be trapped by it's gravitational field.

Yeah' date=' that's what he means.

Observer "C" sees "A" moving at 0.5c, lets say to the left and sees "B" moving at 0.8c to the right. What he was saying is that the relative velocity between "A" and "B", that is, when one measures the other's speed it cannot simply be 0.5c + 0.8c so you have to do some maths.[/quote']

 

In that case I agree with that too.

Oh yeah' date=' duh, you all know what I meant though... (referring to ecoli)

 

I don't think anything other than military action will actually be effective. Have you seen some of the things their President has been saying recently... crazy guy.

[/quote']

 

Did you know that in recent history England is top of the league for waging war. Iran hasn't been to war with any one since it was invaded by Sadam. OK we don't kill as many people as the U.S.

 

The tone of language from the middle East is sour because of the disrespectful way we address and treat them. As far as they can tell, we in the West are happy to do nothing about the ongoing misery caused by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the threat of Israel's bomb. Yet for what they have not yet done, they are to be singled out to do what we command under threat of sanctions and invasion.

 

How would you like it if George Bush commanded Tony Blair to Disarm our nuclear force?

 

It seem's to me that if you want a peaceful world, treat other people as you wish to be treated.

Or maybe you like war.

there are no other observers spaced out' date=' the only observation of any variable occurs when "a" sees "b" move away

 

you can derive the lorentz transformations in this example by saying that observer "a" uses some sort of radar gun to determine the position of b.[/quote']

 

I agree.

The values will be the same as those obtained by measurements made along the x axis in the stationary frame. Effectively the light is the ruler and the common clock of the radar gun provides the synchronous clock time measurements.

Given that the velocity of light is a constant c, the distance that a light/electromagnetic-wave has travelled can be derived from it's transit/journey time by multiplying the velocity of light c, by the elapsed time of the journey.. i.e. d=ct. In the case of a radar gun the wave is emitted, and travels away from the gun until it is reflected off the moving object, when it catches up to the object's current position. The distance between the radar gun and the object at the time of reflection is half the round trip..i.e. d/2.

By the way. I don't consider this method as being synonymous with 'a' seeing the velocity of 'b',.. the context of my original question. However i did think it worthy of further comment, as it demonstrates that different ways of determining velocity can yield different results. That difference's are found, does not mean that the velocities found by one method is right and another method wrong. They are as valid as one another.

anyway, as I was saying before when b is say 1 lightyear away from "a" when he starts moving, it will take 1 year before "a" knows that "b" is moving however "a" can tell by observing the light that "b" emitted what velocity he was traveling at, there is no transformation in this case.

 

I agree with you.

however if you add a third observer "C" who sits at rest at the origin, and he observes "B" moving at .5c in the positive x direction, and he observes "A" moving with .8c in the negative x direction, then the question of what velocity does "A" have relative to "B" is far more complicated, and you must use something called relativistic addition of velocities,

 

I agree so far.

However you say..

as "a" can't move away from "B" at a velocity greater than c

 

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.