Jump to content

elfmotat

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by elfmotat

  1. Well yes, in terms of official punishment, I think this qualifies as someone important having a finger shaken at them for something that would land an underling in much hotter water.

    On the other hand, I think the unofficial response as been on the level of very many people trying to claim that rolling through a stop sign should be treated as proof of a DUI with a few cries from the peanut gallery demanding a charge of vehicular manslaughter thrown in for good measure.

    I want justice, not exaggerated charges. She should be in prison for not more than 11 years, or fined, or both, as per the law.

  2.  

    As I now understand, those 30,000 deleted emails were recovered. Of those 30,000, just 3 emails bore classified markings and the investigators believed it was possible that Mrs. Clinton lacked the technical sophistication to know those documents were classified, which is plausible because they were marked with a symbol commonly used to designate copyrighted publications--an encircled small "c". Mrs. Clinton culpability resided in her detection of a copyright symbol on 3 of 30,000 documents. The clear distinction between Mrs. Clinton's actions and those provided in your link is that she was likely not aware that the deleted documents were classified as the other accused were and the republican led FBI investigators believed her.

     

    18 USC §793. Malintent isn't required for prosecution, only negligence. See for example the case of General Petraeus, who was prosecuted in 2015 for mishandling classified materials.

     

     

    As I understand, multiple documents were stored on a government computer Mr. Deutch had taken home and he new they were classified. Those 3 of 30,000 recovered documents were not on government property Mrs. Clinton secreted in her home and she was not aware they were classified. The two cases are dissimilar.

     

    18 USC §1924. She stored classified materials on an unauthorized computer. It seems like you're reaching to find technicalities that excuse what she did.

     

     

    It is certainly your choice to believe in a conspiracy within the US government to usurp law and justice, indeed there could be many.

     

    Of course there are conspiracies to usurp law and justice. There are many confirmed cases of just such a thing, as a quick google search will demonstrate for you. It's almost as if powerful people do shady things to stay in power :rolleyes:.

     

     

    However, there are people in government with considerably more influence and power than candidate Clinton and they are likely the same sort of people who exposed her husband misdeeds as POTUS.

     

    Who? Clinton is the establishment personified. Name a single person who you think has considerably more power and influence. Also note that I never claimed the Clintons don't have powerful enemies.

     

    Read here what you've provided. Where does Comey said that individuals who commit these offenses are subject to criminal prosecution? Her offenses obviously doesn't rise to the level of punishment and outrage, according to Comey, you seem to be expressing.

     

    It doesn't say that, nor did I claim it did. I provided that quote to establish that the decisions regarding her punishment were clearly politically motivated.

  3. Oh, and as for this:

     

     

    So, what prosecutorial act did Mrs. Clinton commit?

     

    -18 USC §793

    Gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. I'm not sure how this can be argued.

    -18 USC §1924

    Unauthorized retention of classified materials. She stored classified information on an unauthorized private server.

     

     

    As Comey said himself:

     

    "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

  4.  

    I had a look at your link and if the details provided are true, they are obviously not the offenses Mrs. Clinton is alleged to have committed. Neither are they comparable to what she is alleged to have done. If the accusation is that she deleted government related emails, FBI investigators haven't found any evidence that she did. The emails destroyed weren't government related, as she has stated and the investigators have investigated and accepted; therefore, Mrs. Clinton isn't culpable in any action related to their destruction. So, what prosecutorial act did Mrs. Clinton commit? Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton has the power to favorably sway an investigation led by a trusted republican? Although it is exceedingly hard to accept, this is merely political vitriol.

     

    "In various interviews, Clinton has said that "I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified."[87] However, in June and July 2016, a number of news outlets reported that Clinton's emails did include messages with classification "portion markings".[88][89] The FBI investigation found that 110 messages contained information that was classified at the time it was sent. Sixty-five of those emails were found to contain information classified as "Secret"; more than 20 contained "Top-Secret" information.[90][91] Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He also said it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the three classified markings meant.[92][93][94]

    According to the State Department, there were 2,093 email chains on the server that were retroactively marked as classified by the State Department at the "Confidential" confidential level.[95][96]
    Of the 2,100 emails that contained classified information, Clinton personally wrote 104 and her aides wrote hundreds more.[44][97]"
    "Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband."

     

     

    Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton has the power to favorably sway an investigation led by a trusted republican?

     

    Yes.

  5. This whole email huzzah seems like so much grasping at straws. All the investigative terminology makes any action seem suspicious. Are we really thinking someone who has endured the kind of scrutiny Hillary Clinton has is masterminding Nixon-esque misdeeds on traceable electronic media?

     

    Yes. Have you read any of her leaked emails? She's like Machiavelli's wet dream.

     

    https://therationalists.org/2016/03/27/hillary-clinton-versus-the-world/

     

     

    The GOP is afraid of this woman for her brains, but then assumes she's an idiot who thinks deleting emails means they never existed?!

     

    The GOP is a shell of its former self. It was easily co-opted by the shallow buffoon Trump. I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that Clinton is dumb. She's undoubtedly very smart. It's her sociopathic behavior that should make people afraid.

     

     

    Do they hope people who realize the emails are just GOP desperation might still think Hillary covered up something else and we just don't know about it?

     

    The emails are criminal. What she did was criminal. If she wasn't Hillary Clinton she would be in prison, and rightfully so.

     

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

  6. I know my equation becomes z=1, I'm just not sure why that is the case. If you take a look at z=(x+y)/(x-y) it looks like a spiral, so how come a spiral multiplies by another spiral becomes z=1?

     

    Because (A/B)*(B/A) = (A/A)*(B/B) = 1*1 = 1. Try it out with numbers. If you have [(x+y)/(x-y)]*[(x-y)/(x+y)], pick random numbers for x and y. For example, x=6 and y=2:

     

    [(6+2)/(6-2)]*[(6-2)/(6+2)] = [8/4]*[4/8] = [2]*[1/2] = 1.

     

     

    Also get me a chart on x-y=z, many thanks

     

    https://www.google.com/search?q=z%3Dx-y+plot&rlz=1CASMAE_enUS631US631&oq=z%3Dx-y+plot

  7. Consciousness is an emergent property of countless molecules i.e big or macro stuff. Quantum is about nano-sized stuff, is it not? I don't think quantum at that scale with stuff as big as a brain, does it.

     

    It's pretty hard to argue at this point that consciousness is anything other than some emergent property of information processing in the brain. And I agree, quantum phenomena is only relevant at scales much smaller than that of neurons.

  8. Yes but some founders of QM don't think so..how come?

     

     

    For example? Usually this comes down to misunderstanding what is meant by "observer." I don't think consciousness has ever seriously been considered as relevant to QM.

  9. You could try being honest with her. Write her a letter so that you can organize your thoughts, and tell her basically what you told us: that her divorce from reality is causing a rift in your relationship, you find it unhealthy, and you've considered cutting her out of your life because of it. Maybe she'll do some self-reflection, maybe not. Worth a try though.

  10. Time Travel, Time dilation and causal relativity seem to me as barmy as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm, I can't believe what the math says nor can I believe anything has been tested or proven either for or against the theory with satisfactory results.

     

    Why? Is your mind immune to evidence?

     

    So for me to let go of my preconceived ideas, and adopt a new thought framework to base opinions on, I will need to watch someone bend space so much they can travel into the past to pat themselves on the back as they do so.

     

    I realize you're joking, but we have a word for this and it's called being 'closed-minded.' You're setting an unreasonable standard of proof to avoid having to change your mind.

     

    Now don't get me wrong, I'm not Copernicus. all I'm saying is, the science seems to say one thing is possible, but no one, ever has had a reported successful case.

     

    Successful case of what? Time dilation? You've been given examples of experiments that successfully detect time dilation.

     

    Meanwhile anyone (Including me) who attempts to suggest we may be barking up the wrong tree on this one is told to abandon their beliefs and join the herd on the greener side of the fence. I REALLY want to do that, but I am stuck on this Time Travel thing, which relativity doesn't forbid.

     

    Beliefs should be based on evidence. If they aren't, they're delusions. You've been presented with evidence.

     

    I hope, while making my feelings clear, and my sense of logic apparent, I have not offended anyone. If I have, I apologize wholeheartedly.

     

    Science should not be considerate of feelings; yours, mine, or anyone else's.

     

    My problem is not that the math..or science can prove that it's possible and can at least potentially become reality at some point, my issue is that we (the human race) allowed ourselves to go down this particular rabbit hole in the first place.

     

    To what rabbit hole are you referring? The hole of following the evidence and trying to understand nature? I'm not sure why that's a bad hole to go down.

  11. Simply, covariant and contravariant refers to tensor indices (upstairs index is contravariant, downstairs index is covariant). For a full understanding of what they mean, I recommend a textbook like Schutz's General Relativity textbook. He gives a great indroduction to tensors and the notation involved. Invariants are scalars which are the same in every reference frame. Variants (although I've never really seen this term in practice before) are simply scalars that change with reference frame.

     

    EDIT: I realized examples would probably help.

     

    Contravariant: An example of a contravariant tensor (rank-1, aka vector) would be velocity:

     

    [math]v^\mu = \frac{dx^\mu}{d \tau}[/math]

     

    An example of a covariant tensor would be the gradient of the electric potential [math]\phi[/math]:

     

    [math]\partial_\mu \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x^\mu}[/math].

     

    One of the useful aspects of this notation is that summing over upper and lower indices of vectors produces invariants, i.e. objects that don't depend on your choice of reference frame:

     

    [math]\sum_\mu q \, \partial_\mu \phi \, v^\mu = power[/math].

     

    (Also, the electric potential was probably a bad example because it's actually part of the electromagnetic 4-potential. As such it will also transform under a coordinate transformation, so the above example isn't actually true. I chose it because it's the most familiar. Substitute it with a true scalar field for an accurate example.)

  12. I think the calculated radius would be different among other things.

     

    Edit: Apparently not!

    No, you were right the first time :P. In Newtonian gravity "r" is a distance, whereas when describing a Schwarzschild black hole "r" is merely a coordinate. Radial distances need to be found via an integral of ds. The r-coordinate only asymptotically approaches a measure of distance as it increases. So, even though the two equations look identical, they mean different things.

  13. (Although I think "background" might have some specific connotations as a technical term in physics.)

    Yes, typically when one speaks of a "background" they are referring to a specific spacetime geometry. You could, for example, do field theory on top of a Schwarzschild background spacetime.

  14. Generally a "source" is something whose presence implies some nonzero field. A field is defined on a manifold whose dimensionality is already determined. I.e. space and time already exist, they are not fields, and nothing acts as a "source" of them. Energy-momentum acts as a source of (Einsteinian) curvature. Zero energy-momentum does not imply no spacetime, it implies flat spacetime.

     

    Hopefully that clears up any confusion, but experience tells me it probably won't :P.

  15. I'm not exactly sure what your question has to do with transverse and longitudinal mass. Proper acceleration is the magnitude of four-acceleration. So if you have a path (in this case a circle), you can parametrize it, find four-acceleration, then take its norm to find proper acceleration:

     

    [math]x^\mu (t)= (ct,Rcos \, \omega t,Rsin \, \omega t)[/math]

     

    [math]u^\mu (t)= \frac{dx^\mu}{d \tau} = \frac{dt}{d \tau} \frac{dx^\mu}{dt} = \frac{dt}{d \tau} (c,-R\omega sin \, \omega t,R\omega cos \, \omega t)[/math]

     

    we know that:

     

    [math]d\tau^2 = dt^2 -c^{-2}( dx^2 + dy^2)[/math]

     

    or:

     

    [math]\left (\frac{d\tau}{dt} \right )^2 = 1 -c^{-2} \left ( \left ( \frac{dx}{dt} \right )^2 + \left ( \frac{dy}{dt} \right )^2 \right ) = 1 -c^{-2} \left ( R^2 \omega^2 sin^2 \, \omega t + R^2 \omega^2 cos^2 \, \omega t \right ) = 1-\frac{R^2 \omega^2}{c^2}[/math]

     

    So:

     

    [math]u^\mu (t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2}} (c,-R\omega sin \, \omega t,R\omega cos \, \omega t)[/math]

     

    Then we can compute four-acceleration:

     

    [math]a^\mu (t) = \frac{dt}{d \tau} \frac{du^\mu}{dt} = \frac{1}{1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2} (0,-R\omega^2 cos \, \omega t,-R\omega^2 sin \, \omega t)[/math]

     

    And from there we can compute proper acceleration:

     

    [math]a_{prop}= \sqrt{a^\mu a_\mu} = \sqrt{\frac{R^2\omega^4 cos^2 \, \omega t+R^2\omega^4 sin^2 \, \omega t}{(1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2)^2}} = \frac{R\omega^2}{1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2}[/math]

     

    So, given the circular path's radius and the object's angular velocity, the proper acceleration felt by the object is [math]R\omega^2/ (1-R^2 \omega^2/c^2)[/math]. Note that the object's tangential speed [math]v=R \omega[/math] can also be plugged into this equation to get:

     

    [math]a_{prop} = \frac{v^2/R}{1-v^2/c^2} = \frac{\gamma^2 v^2}{R}[/math]

     

     

     

    EDIT: Whoops, forgot to square the demoninator :P.

  16. Is there a connexion between states which admit to the possibility of entanglement and those which form part of non-commutable pairs of observables; ie you can know the charge both positive and negative - these are not entangeable, you cannot know both the spin on the x and the z to arbitrary accuracy - particles are spin entangleable.

    All observables have corresponding operators, and the non-commutativity of two operators is what defines the uncertainty relation between these observables. Since there needs to be uncertainty for there to be entanglement, the answer to your question would be: yes.

  17. Disregarding higher-order effects, if the gravitational potential energy between two masses was [math]+GMm/r[/math] instead of [math]-GMm/r[/math] then gravity would behave akin to like charges repelling each other (but much weaker). The result of which would be a universe with no large structures, and definitely no black holes.

     

    If you want to keep gravity the way it is, except have it be repulsive at very short distances, the formulation of such a theory would be much more complicated. (I suspect it's probably been done before, but I haven't seen it). However, the shorter the scale at which it becomes repulsive, the more irrelevant the effects would be due to how weak gravity is in the first place compared to the other forces.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.