On sensitive matters related to Russia, senior advisers have at times adopted what one official described as a policy of “don’t walk that last 5½ feet” — meaning to avoid entering the Oval Office and giving Trump a chance to erupt or overrule on issues that can be resolved by subordinates.
Another former U.S. official described being enlisted to contact the German government before Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit at the White House in March. The outreach had two aims, the official said — to warn Merkel that her encounter with Trump would probably be acrimonious because of their diverging views on refugees, trade and other issues, but also to urge her to press Trump on U.S. support for NATO.
The signature moment of the trip came during a brief photo appearance in which Trump wore a dour expression and appeared to spurn Merkel’s effort to shake his hand, though Trump later said he had not noticed the gesture.
His demeanor with the German leader was in striking contrast with his encounters with Putin and other authoritarian figures. “Who are the three guys in the world he most admires? President Xi [Jinping] of China, [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and Putin,” one Trump adviser said. “They’re all the same guy.”
That was a snippet from a column that was just published the other day in the oft-maligned [at least, on this discussion forum] Washington Post.
"Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues [collegiality with Vladimir] Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked" Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe and Philip Rucker for the Washington Post; Dec. 14, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost....m_term=.fc50820d446f
Are President Xi Jinping of China, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin literally "all the same guy"..?
Maybe it's not such an outlandish idea. As soon as I read that part of the WaPo report, I was reminded of what I think is one of the most far-fetched or outlandish-sounding ideas ever put forward by a fully credentialed scientist.
It's known as the One-Electron Universe hypothesis.
It's an idea that John Wheeler described to Richard Feynman in 1940, when the two venerated physicists were having a telephone conversation.
Since it is easy to use Google or any similar online search engine to cough up articles and videos about the One-Electron Universe idea, I am going to depart from my usual Pennock's Off Topic practice of Beating It To Death and keep the remainder of my remarks here fairly brief.
Here's part of a brief writeup on a website called Stranger Dimensions.
quote
What if every electron in the universe is actually the exact same electron?
This idea, called the one-electron universe, came up during a telephone conversation between theoretical physicists John Wheeler and Richard Feynman back in 1940.
Electrons and positrons, Wheeler suggested, are actually a single entity moving forwards and backwards in time.
As the electron moves forwards, he mused, it is observed as an ordinary electron; as it moves backwards, it is observed as a positron (a positively-charged electron). To us, living one-way through time as we do, these electrons and positrons seem to individually fill the universe, each with their own world lines. But this is an illusion. In reality, we’re observing the same particle repeatedly at different points in a single world line that resembles a “tremendous knot.” . . .
As Feynman said, the idea that all electrons in the universe are the same electron wasn’t something he took seriously. Neither did John Archibald Wheeler, for that matter, and he’s the one who came up with it! But Wheeler was an unending well of incredible ideas.
For example, another of his students, Hugh Everett III, would go on to propose the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I don't think that Science has any argument or experiment that can literally disprove the One-Electron Universe hypothesis. Not even an idea for such an experiment. No empirical measurement with the most-advanced astrophysical telescopes or space-borne sensors or, going the other direction, not a snippet of evidence from the world's most vaunted particle physics experiments, like the Large Hadron Collider, that can literally disprove this idea.
This is probably one of the more entertaining video presentations about it.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I am going to depart from my usual Pennock's Off Topic practice of Beating It To Death and keep the remainder of my remarks here fairly brief.
As I asked yesterday, if you lie about this, which you did because you didn't keep it brief, what else would you lie about?
Islands inundated, Trump collusion, shadeballs, Yellowstone explosions, quite a list of dubious claims.
But it is entertaining, which is really all we're looking for, am I right?
I think that was partly in jest, but taking it at face value: how brief do you need me to be?
This is all the text, aside from the http-links, that I entered after that promise, to keep it brief: Here's part of a brief writeup on a website called Stranger Dimensions.
quote
What if every electron in the universe is actually the exact same electron?
This idea, called the one-electron universe, came up during a telephone conversation between theoretical physicists John Wheeler and Richard Feynman back in 1940.
Electrons and positrons, Wheeler suggested, are actually a single entity moving forwards and backwards in time.
As the electron moves forwards, he mused, it is observed as an ordinary electron; as it moves backwards, it is observed as a positron (a positively-charged electron). To us, living one-way through time as we do, these electrons and positrons seem to individually fill the universe, each with their own world lines. But this is an illusion. In reality, we’re observing the same particle repeatedly at different points in a single world line that resembles a “tremendous knot.” . . .
As Feynman said, the idea that all electrons in the universe are the same electron wasn’t something he took seriously. Neither did John Archibald Wheeler, for that matter, and he’s the one who came up with it! But Wheeler was an unending well of incredible ideas.
For example, another of his students, Hugh Everett III, would go on to propose the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I don't think that Science has any argument or experiment that can literally disprove the One-Electron Universe hypothesis. Not even an idea for such an experiment. No empirical measurement with the most-advanced astrophysical telescopes or space-borne sensors or, going the other direction, not a snippet of evidence from the world's most vaunted particle physics experiments, like the Large Hadron Collider, that can literally disprove this idea.
This is probably one of the more entertaining video presentations about it.
The One-Electron Universe | Space Time PBS Space Time; August 10, 2017.
"Could it be that all the electrons in the universe are simply one, single electron moving back and forth through time?"
This video segment is almost 13 minutes long. Click to show
This is all the text, except for the http-links again, and the copy-and-paste part: I don't think that Science has any argument or experiment that can literally disprove the One-Electron Universe hypothesis. Not even an idea for such an experiment. No empirical measurement with the most-advanced astrophysical telescopes or space-borne sensors or, going the other direction, not a snippet of evidence from the world's most vaunted particle physics experiments, like the Large Hadron Collider, that can literally disprove this idea.
This is probably one of the more entertaining video presentations about it.
The One-Electron Universe | Space Time PBS Space Time; August 10, 2017.
"Could it be that all the electrons in the universe are simply one, single electron moving back and forth through time?"
This video segment is almost 13 minutes long. Click to show
I am only talking, after all, about a theory that is connected with the fundamental nature of reality. Can it get any deeper than that? Are you miffed at Einstein because he used more than a single page when he published The General Theory of Relativity?
If people want to be understood, they should use no more words than necessary, but at the same time, not any fewer words than necessary.
I think if we were to make the test, we could both find messages on this discussion forum where the messenger would have been better served to use more words.
A paragraph of three straightforward sentences that can be diagrammed as <Noun-phrase> + <Verb phrase> is probably better than a single but long and convoluted sentence that has subordinate clauses such as "But if..." or "Whereas..." Better for the writer, who makes himself clear; better for the reader, who reads it with perfect comprehension of the writers' intentions.
That's my Zeitgeist on how to message, using an online discussion forum.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-17-2017).]
Electrons. This isn't about the One Electron Universe hypothesis, but it's about two electrons in a state of Quantum Entanglement.
I think it's a nice writeup for a lay (not a "just got laid") audience. And the surprising thing, I think, is the venue. It's from Business Insider.
"This bizarre experiment just produced the best evidence yet of the universe's 'spooky' side" Kelly Dickerson for Business Insider; October 28, 2015. http://www.businessinsider....t-experiment-2015-10
Fairly brief. A pretty easy read. And it includes some YouTube video. Right where it says "You can watch a detailed explanation of a Bell test in the video below:" About halfway down the page.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-18-2017).]
I know this reads like a scene with two old white men in New England sitting in wingback chairs in front of a fire place at a country club drinking scotch and talking politics...
But the reality is... it's read more like that scene in Stargate where James Spader is giving a briefing at a university, and there's like three people in the audience.
I know this reads like a scene with two old white men in New England sitting in wingback chairs in front of a fire place at a country club drinking scotch and talking politics...
But the reality is... it's read more like that scene in Stargate where James Spader is giving a briefing at a university, and there's like three people in the audience.
Except here there is no stargate. There's just some bat sh!t crazy guy standing in his underwear on the balcony of his apartment in Sunnyvale California holding a hula hoop and screaming LOOK AT ME DAMMIT...LOOK AT ME!....STRANGE CONNECTIONS!!!....TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-18-2017).]
Except here there is no stargate. There's just some bat sh!t crazy guy standing in his underwear on the balcony of his apartment in Sunnyvale California holding a hula hoop and screaming LOOK AT ME DAMMIT...LOOK AT ME!....STRANGE CONNECTIONS!!!....TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.
In that particular corner of the world, would anybody even notice?
The Mueller investigation will report out with "President Trump and Vladimir Putin are in a state of Quantum Entanglement that was created by Russian Federation espionage agents using a previously unknown kind of technology. It happened when Trump was in Russia for the Miss Universe pageant. Some still unknown kind of energy beam was aimed at Trump as he slept in bed in a Moscow hotel room."
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ugh... why did I click on this? I know this reads like a scene with two old white men in New England sitting in wingback chairs in front of a fire place at a country club drinking scotch and talking politics... But the reality is... it's read more like that scene in Stargate where James Spader is giving a briefing at a university, and there's like three people in the audience.
I like it. I think I would like to have offered one of the two old-men characters to Clint Eastwood, although I'm not sure he is still up to it. I don't follow Hollywood much.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-18-2017).]
Speaking of gravitational waves--not so outlandish in theory as the One Electron Universe hypothesis--but the lengths (think of that as a quasi-pun) of the ground-based engineering that has been used in the construction and operation of the two LIGO detectors--one in Washington state and the other in Louisiana--is certainly outlandish.
I like this video of 9 minutes duration from the Veritasium channel on YouTube, about a "head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength" that measures fluctuations in the length of a 4-kilometer tunnel--that's almost two and a half miles long--described as 10,000 times smaller than what is considered to be the width or the diameter of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (a proton.) It's the ratiometric equivalent of measuring a fluctuation in the distance from Earth to the closest star beyond the Solar System--a distance of about 26 trillion miles--that is the width of a human hair.
The LIGO expert who was interviewed was a bit of a "rake", as an Englishman might say. (Disclosure: I'm not an Englishman.) The remarks from viewers in the comments section on the YouTube page include references to what viewers perceived as his "un-ironed shirt."
If you don't watch this video, you might lose the same 9 minutes of your life to having your sleep interrupted by the thought of what you are missing.
Speaking of gravitational waves--not so outlandish in theory as the One Electron Universe hypothesis--but the lengths (think of that as a quasi-pun) of the ground-based engineering that has been used in the construction and operation of the two LIGO detectors--one in Washington state and the other in Louisiana--is certainly outlandish.
I like this video of 9 minutes duration from the Veritasium channel on YouTube, about a "head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength" that measures fluctuations in the length of a 4-kilometer tunnel--that's almost two and a half miles long--described as 10,000 times smaller than what is considered to be the width or the diameter of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (a proton.) It's the ratiometric equivalent of measuring a fluctuation in the distance from Earth to the closest star beyond the Solar System--a distance of about 26 trillion miles--that is the width of a human hair.
The LIGO expert who was interviewed was a bit of a "rake", as an Englishman might say. (Disclosure: I'm not an Englishman.) The remarks from viewers in the comments section on the YouTube page include references to what viewers perceived as his "un-ironed shirt."
If you don't watch this video, you might lose the same 9 minutes of your life to having your sleep interrupted by the thought of what you are missing.
Speaking of gravitational waves--not so outlandish in theory as the One Electron Universe hypothesis--but the lengths (think of that as a quasi-pun) of the ground-based engineering that has been used in the construction and operation of the two LIGO detectors--one in Washington state and the other in Louisiana--is certainly outlandish.
I like this video of 9 minutes duration from the Veritasium channel on YouTube, about a "head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength" that measures fluctuations in the length of a 4-kilometer tunnel--that's almost two and a half miles long--described as 10,000 times smaller than what is considered to be the width or the diameter of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (a proton.) It's the ratiometric equivalent of measuring a fluctuation in the distance from Earth to the closest star beyond the Solar System--a distance of about 26 trillion miles--that is the width of a human hair.
The LIGO expert who was interviewed was a bit of a "rake", as an Englishman might say. (Disclosure: I'm not an Englishman.) The remarks from viewers in the comments section on the YouTube page include references to what viewers perceived as his "un-ironed shirt."
If you don't watch this video, you might lose the same 9 minutes of your life to having your sleep interrupted by the thought of what you are missing.
Rinse, I like you... I do... but your posts are long-winded, and while it may feel like it flows magically from your mind to the keyboard, it really comes out just sounding nuts. You may think we simply don't have the acumen to properly appreciate your writing style... but it's not us that's the problem. You need to be more concise. You may choose to use larger more complex words, but that doesn't mean you have to randomize your tangents such that we never really know what we're reading. It makes it hard to follow.
Again, you may feel like when you write, you are standing up at a lectern speaking to a black tie affair in a banquet hall with "white glove" service, but really, it's more like Peter Griffin and Louis when they attempted to participate in the talent show when they were high:
Again, no hard feelings, you singly defend the undefendable... and you do it well. But if you're going to make it last, you have to start making sense.
Uh, well, ahem... how about my idea of casting Clint Eastwood for one of the two old white men roles in that movie or stage play scene with "two old white men in New England sitting in wing back chairs in front of a fire place at a country club drinking scotch and talking politics"..? That from 82-T/A. That was the last remark, before I took this into LIGO-land.
The Clint Eastwood of not all that many years ago, if not the Clint Eastwood of today?
Who else for casting as one or both of these characters?
It sounds like something that would grab my attention. A movie without stunt persons and special effects. Or a stage play with almost no props or stage construction. Minimalism.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-29-2017).]
Uh, well, ahem... how about my idea of casting Clint Eastwood for one of the two old white men roles in that movie or stage play scene with "two old white men in New England sitting in wing back chairs in front of a fire place at a country club drinking scotch and talking politics"..? That from 82-T/A. That was the last remark, before I took this into LIGO-land.
The Clint Eastwood of not all that many years ago, if not the Clint Eastwood of today?
Who else for casting as one or both of these characters?
It sounds like something that would grab my attention. A movie without stunt persons and special effects. Or a stage play with almost no props or stage construction. Minimalism.
Hmmmn. I'm stuck. Aside from Clint Eastwood. But Seb (Sebastian) Gorka--not a chance. Mr Eastwood can lean his character towards the political right, or towards the political left, depending on which other actor or character is seated in the other of the two wing back chairs.
Title of this still nascent Indie or Boutique film/stage offering?
"Dying of the Light" would reference that the two old white men are conversing late into the night. "Down to a Sunless Sea"... in a seaside hamlet somewhere in New England.
Title of this still nascent Indie or Boutique film/stage offering?
"Dying of the Light" would reference that the two old white men are conversing late into the night. "Down to a Sunless Sea"... in a seaside hamlet somewhere in New England.
Both have already been used as book titles.
Ready to get the Crowd Funding effort underway.
The Rapist and the Rabbi
...starring Rick Moranis and Arnold Schwartznegger.
Your guess as to who plays which role, it could go either way.
Not hours ago, but very recently. Still hot.
I am still picking feathers out of my teeth.
