Who in their right minds would invade a country over a hostage situation that should have been handled domestically (viz.: by the Iranians)? Where is this rhetoric from Tehran, and how does it size up against our own? (Give us the context too, if you wouldn't mind.) Cite your sources in regards to the meddling in Iraq. Pure speculation pieces won't do, of course; we'll need actual proof. Going right down the list here: when did any official communique from the government of Iran state that, somewhere in their 5 year plan, they're going to wipe Israel of the map? Could it be they were making campaign promises? Again, we'll need sources and context. Finally, how is attempting to catch up to the US (and France, and China, and Russia, and India, and Pakistan, etc etc) militarily any sign of aggression? If anything it's a sign of a national survival instinct.

Thank you in advance for supporting your assertions. Few people ever do.

I don't see any difference between N. Korea and Iran in the respect that they're different from us, yet functional. If the people of N. Korea didn't approve of their government, one would see demonstrations, if not coup d'état attempts. This, however, is nowhere to be seen. From this we can infer that their government is adequately representing, and working for, them. A nuclear war would destroy most of their population, and would go against their current status quo (of government evidently working for its people). [I forget who said it first, but the people get the government that they deserve.]

I doubt that the N. Koreans don't have any idea regarding what would happen if they detonated a nuke somewhere. Just because they're different from us doesn't mean they're insane. Perhaps you could cite precedents of the N. Koreans' that support your notion of their leadership is so mentally incompetent that they'd risk a nuclear war, and why you personally think they haven't learned from this.

How is calling the German army by its official name in any way pretentious? 'Accurate' is more like it.

Maybe now that they have these new toys we can stop agitating them like schoolyard bullies. Or is this the wrong forum to post this?

Clearly we should encourage German immigration. I imagine beer and sausage are a lot more renewable sources of energy than carbon fuels.

Unfortunately nobody is a final authority, as far as I can tell. Einstein is dead, and presumably nobody wants to put their academic reputation on the line for speaking out against or for this.

I was just making sure that the criteria here for a response wasn't limited to an appeal to authority. Having established this, I now know that presenting an argument contra relativistic mass isn't just a waste of time.

What follows is a paper I penned for the a series called /Occam's Razor/, a reductionist series on physics. For more, I can be reached at sven.gelbhaar at gmail dot com.

On Relativistic Mass
Sven Gelbhaar
27 October 2008

If two objects collide at relativistic speeds, it will appear from their perspectives that momentum symmetry breaks down due to properties of light [Lorentz Transformation] (or so it's believed as per Special Relativity). To work around this and conserve momentum, Einstein postulated that the mass of an object increases as its velocity does. (1) In a previous paper entitled Revised Theory of Relativity I've pointed out that the properties of light might allow for optical illusions, if it truly has a constant speed, but perception isn't always reality.

Take the case of a warped circus mirror. When you look into one, it may appear as if your torso is half its original size and your legs are a mile high, but does this mean that in reality that that's the case? No. If the speed of light is limited to c, then objects moving at incredibly high relativistic speeds might appear to be distorted, but they really aren't. (body:colliding high speed particles, mirror:speed) This (postulate) extends to the ostensible break in the symmetry of momentum. From the point of view of colliding high speed particles, it looks as though momentum isn't conserved, but it still is (from an objective point of view). This, and this alone, should warrant us to dismiss the theory of relativistic mass.

Let us examine what actually does increase as (kinetic) energy increases: momentum. It doesn't take more force to accelerate an object from 0 mph to 20 than it does from 20 to 40. It does become 'harder' to bring it to a stop from higher rates of speed because it builds up more momentum, however. Relativistic mass is (if you'll allow the exageration) simply a misinterpretation of momentum. Now let's take a look at the implications of relativistic mass, if it were to hold true. More mass means more momentum, so when baryonic cosmic rays come crashing in with over 10^20 electro-volts of kinetic energy (2), we'd see a whole lot more than the aurora borealis - planet Earth probably wouldn't support life.

More mass also means larger gravitational impact. So even when these cosmic rays aren't exterminating all life on Earth, they're also exerting a vast gravitational sway on it as they're passing by, upsetting its orbit, either sending us careening into the Sun or pushing us out into the vast cold expanse. This is obviously not the case, and keeping in mind the maxim that reality doesn't change with (mis-)perception at high rates of speed, we really have no need nor justification for supporting the notion of relativistic mass. This implies that there is no "universal speed limit", for the old rules of momentum are re-instated. [If you're unconvinced over the 'no universal speed limit' assertion then please let me know. I have more supporting work which dispels the notion that light moves at c based upon the original Willem De Sitter's Double Star Experiment etc.]

1. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html 27 October 2008
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays 27 October 2008

[EOF]

No relativistic mass means that regardless of how much we accelerate objects, their mass won't increase, and if their mass doesn't increase then there's no chance whatsoever that these particles will turn into tiny harbingers of doom in the form of microscopic black holes. I look forward to your review.

Nothing but an appeal to authority would convince you? It seems, from what you said, as though whatever argument *I* would present wouldn't suffice to persuade you either way. Forgive and inform me if this is not the case, and I'll be happy to explain why black holes can't be created through sheer acceleration (relativistic mass).

Leo Tolstoy (author of _War_and_Peace_) maintains that this was most likely the result of the breakdown of civil services (the fire dept. or its equivalent) due to the mass exodus.

What happened to free will? If it is humanity's wish to destroy itself, why would God (or whom/what-ever) stop that but not the individual murderers, rapists, bankers, stock brokers, etc? I'm seeing a double standard here.

As I always comment when this topic comes up: people need to learn the difference between relativistic mass and invariant mass. There will be no black holes etc.

Cheap drugs? Where? You'll find that most other (developed) nations have cheaper pharmaceuticals than the USA does. Unless you're talking about illicit drugs, about which I wouldn't know.

I didn't provoke the Goodwin law, as this conversation was already about Nazis by the time I jumped in. So no, you're wrong on that account.

Killing massive amounts of innocent civilians in the name of freedom and democracy is pretty ridiculous in and of itself. As a matter of fact, it's right up there with "we had to destroy the village to save it." Also, how is freedom and democracy working out in the Monarchy that is England? Last I heard they didn't exactly have freedom of speech, etc. Not that it really matters in this debate. The main gist of my argument is that England declared war on Germany, and botched the whole thing to the point where they had to slaughter millions of innocent civilians during cowardly night bombing runs. That's a great example of 'dying a romantic death on the wings of freedom', if you ask me. /sarcasm>

My contention still stands that the Nazis would have over-extended themselves, and that they wouldn't have been able to keep up their draconian rule after a long and expensive (as in all resources, including man-power) military campaign.

I may have been slightly out of line when I labeled England as inherently inferior to Germany, but if you look at everything from their GDP, to landmass, to population, to morale (at that juncture in the war), to scientific achievements, to culture, then my point there still stands.

Killing innocent civilians en masse is not an acceptable method of achieving freedom, which is a commodity to be enjoyed by that same group of people. I await your counter argument, which I'm sure will include much corroboration, with much anticipation.

I take it by your ad hominem that you admit that you're merely trolling for an argument. If this is not the case then provide justification for your view.

...or are you someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, mistaken for consorting and aiding terrorists of a foreign country by another foreign country's occupational force? We'll never know without a fair trail.

Without a trail, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused of being a 'terrorist' was actually acting in such a capacity, the label thereof is no more convincing than just calling someone a witch back in the 1800s (or whenever that was the scapegoat label de jour) and burning them at the stake. Granted, now we just torture and incarcerate them indefinitely on a plot of land legally owned (Cuba doesn't accept the rent money, after all) by a country that the USA still won't trade with, nor allow entry into by its own citizens, which is rather convenient if you ask me.

Here's an idea: The UN formed Israel, so it should be fairly easy to sway the UN to protect their invention. If I were the President/Prime_Minister/Chancellor of Israel I would petition the UN to swear to defend her the next time someone declares war on her for no more than ideological or religious reasons. Also, I would make use of the supposedly competent secret service (the mossad) to stop the pathetic mosquito (rocket/mortar) attacks that were plaguing her. As always: use the right tool for the right job. I contend that it should not take a full scale symmetrical war to stop a few supposedly rogue military elements from firing a few occasional rockets into Israel, so when they invoked such clearly (IMO) overbearing measures the impression anyone should walk away with is "they're making a power play".