MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”

[Crazy Eddie]

Back to the topic
https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/05/...idespread-and-systematic-use-chemical-weapons

HRW claims it was a soviet ХАБ-250.
To me cap does not look like it's from ХАБ-250 and in looks rusty and alien. But ХАБ-250 can release gas in air at certain height and on impact too. Wait, russians said it was designed to explode in the air, which seems make sense. It's probably explodes on impact in case it fails to explode in the air.

I agree that the twisted piece does not immediately look like it was part of it, but the cap looks the same. And anyway the presence of a cap at least shows that it was a chemical bomb and not some random pipe as suggested by Postol. I suppose, Syrians could have built their own bombs inspired by Russian designs?

Who needs inspiration? It could easily have BEEN the Russian design, bought and paid for. That would lend credibility to the idea the Syrian government was using it; if they had it in large enough numbers (buying in bulk?) then they might just be firing for effect or using it as a terror/intimidation weapon.

If, on the other hand, it was a weapon possessed by the rebels and/or Daesh, then that would also explain why THEY never used it (no airplanes to drop it from), especially if they acquired it from second-hand sources or stole it from the Syrians themselves.

I will say that the Syrians using chlorine isn't something I would really doubt at this point. It's been a long, nasty war and chlorine is really really easy to make and weaponize and the combatants we've seen so far -- both sides -- are exactly the kind of assholes who would stoop to that given half the chance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Half right. In general relativity those things are covered under "non-inertial reference frames" or "moving coordinate systems." The best known of those is called "gravity," which is a specific type of warped space caused by the presence of a point mass.

"Warp drive" is not a real thing. Neither is hyper drive, folding space, teleportation, wizard magic or vampires. So in a sense you're correct, relativity is indeed silent on fictional things that don't exist.

I'm referring to the general ideas:

Warp drive--rather than moving at enormous velocity you warp space so as to have an effective velocity far above your real velocity. The math has been worked out, it should work except for the energy requirements. Time travel paradoxes apply.

Hyper drive--rather than moving at FTL velocities in our universe you travel in another universe where either the distances are shorter or the speed limits are higher. If something about this process imposes a reference frame you escape the FTL paradoxes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Half right. In general relativity those things are covered under "non-inertial reference frames" or "moving coordinate systems." The best known of those is called "gravity," which is a specific type of warped space caused by the presence of a point mass.

"Warp drive" is not a real thing. Neither is hyper drive, folding space, teleportation, wizard magic or vampires. So in a sense you're correct, relativity is indeed silent on fictional things that don't exist.

I'm referring to the general ideas:

Warp drive

IS
NOT
REAL

It's FICTION, LP. It's not a real thing. It doesn't have mathematical properties you can speculate on because there is no such thing as "warp drive." It has every bit as much scientific grounding as Harry Potter and Star Wars, the only difference is that graphic artists get paid a lot more money to draw pictures of warp drive concepts whenever NASA need to get itself into the headlines.

Time travel paradoxes apply.

... as an example of all the ways FTL travel is mathematically impossible. The paradox isn't the problem, MATH is.

The Twins Paradox is a good example. It happens because all your observations have to be made at the speed of light, so if you were to travel FASTER than light, your observations would contradict each other. The resolution of this paradox is the basis of special relativity itself, because resolving this contradiction is done by treating ALL inertial reference frames as equivalent and thus logically valid. That's why it's called the "theory of relativity." Because anything you can say about the world around you is only valid relative to you.

General Relativity is more complicated because it deals with non-inertial reference frames where both observers are not actually equivalent. An observation made within a deep gravity well is only valid within that circumstance (which astronauts have learned to exploit with the Oberth Maneuver, giving themselves a free velocity boost during orbit transfers). Because of this, General relativity doesn't lead to paradoxical conclusions, so this is irrelevant.

Hyper drive

Also isn't real. In fact, it's so far from being real that NASA doesn't even have a graphic artist dreaming about it.

 

[LordKiran]

I'm referring to the general ideas:

Warp drive

IS
NOT
REAL

It's FICTION, LP. It's not a real thing. It doesn't have mathematical properties you can speculate on because there is no such thing as "warp drive." It has every bit as much scientific grounding as Harry Potter and Star Wars, the only difference is that graphic artists get paid a lot more money to draw pictures of warp drive concepts whenever NASA need to get itself into the headlines.

Time travel paradoxes apply.

... as an example of all the ways FTL travel is mathematically impossible. The paradox isn't the problem, MATH is.

The Twins Paradox is a good example. It happens because all your observations have to be made at the speed of light, so if you were to travel FASTER than light, your observations would contradict each other. The resolution of this paradox is the basis of special relativity itself, because resolving this contradiction is done by treating ALL inertial reference frames as equivalent and thus logically valid. That's why it's called the "theory of relativity." Because anything you can say about the world around you is only valid relative to you.

General Relativity is more complicated because it deals with non-inertial reference frames where both observers are not actually equivalent. An observation made within a deep gravity well is only valid within that circumstance (which astronauts have learned to exploit with the Oberth Maneuver, giving themselves a free velocity boost during orbit transfers). Because of this, General relativity doesn't lead to paradoxical conclusions, so this is irrelevant.

Hyper drive

Also isn't real. In fact, it's so far from being real that NASA doesn't even have a graphic artist dreaming about it.

B-b-b-but....My Starwars Schematics books! Are you telling me those are WORTHLESS?! The appraiser told me they'd be of historical significance once FTL travel really took off!

Also, what about wormholes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm referring to the general ideas:

Warp drive

IS
NOT
REAL

It's FICTION, LP. It's not a real thing. It doesn't have mathematical properties you can speculate on because there is no such thing as "warp drive." It has every bit as much scientific grounding as Harry Potter and Star Wars, the only difference is that graphic artists get paid a lot more money to draw pictures of warp drive concepts whenever NASA need to get itself into the headlines.

Time travel paradoxes apply.

... as an example of all the ways FTL travel is mathematically impossible. The paradox isn't the problem, MATH is.

The Twins Paradox is a good example. It happens because all your observations have to be made at the speed of light, so if you were to travel FASTER than light, your observations would contradict each other. The resolution of this paradox is the basis of special relativity itself, because resolving this contradiction is done by treating ALL inertial reference frames as equivalent and thus logically valid. That's why it's called the "theory of relativity." Because anything you can say about the world around you is only valid relative to you.

General Relativity is more complicated because it deals with non-inertial reference frames where both observers are not actually equivalent. An observation made within a deep gravity well is only valid within that circumstance (which astronauts have learned to exploit with the Oberth Maneuver, giving themselves a free velocity boost during orbit transfers). Because of this, General relativity doesn't lead to paradoxical conclusions, so this is irrelevant.

Hyper drive

Also isn't real. In fact, it's so far from being real that NASA doesn't even have a graphic artist dreaming about it.

While nobody has built a warp drive there is math that describes how to do it, consistent with relativity. (Powering it is another matter...)

And while we aren't even to first base on a hyper drive, neither do we have anything saying it's impossible. It's currently an unknown. Many theories of how the universe works postulate that there are other universes out there.

 

[J842P]

Guys, can we take the speculative physics discussion to another thread?

 

[barbos]

IS
NOT
REAL

It's FICTION, LP. It's not a real thing. It doesn't have mathematical properties you can speculate on because there is no such thing as "warp drive." It has every bit as much scientific grounding as Harry Potter and Star Wars, the only difference is that graphic artists get paid a lot more money to draw pictures of warp drive concepts whenever NASA need to get itself into the headlines.

Time travel paradoxes apply.

... as an example of all the ways FTL travel is mathematically impossible. The paradox isn't the problem, MATH is.

The Twins Paradox is a good example. It happens because all your observations have to be made at the speed of light, so if you were to travel FASTER than light, your observations would contradict each other. The resolution of this paradox is the basis of special relativity itself, because resolving this contradiction is done by treating ALL inertial reference frames as equivalent and thus logically valid. That's why it's called the "theory of relativity." Because anything you can say about the world around you is only valid relative to you.

General Relativity is more complicated because it deals with non-inertial reference frames where both observers are not actually equivalent. An observation made within a deep gravity well is only valid within that circumstance (which astronauts have learned to exploit with the Oberth Maneuver, giving themselves a free velocity boost during orbit transfers). Because of this, General relativity doesn't lead to paradoxical conclusions, so this is irrelevant.

Hyper drive

Also isn't real. In fact, it's so far from being real that NASA doesn't even have a graphic artist dreaming about it.

While nobody has built a warp drive there is math that describes how to do it, consistent with relativity. (Powering it is another matter...)

And while we aren't even to first base on a hyper drive, neither do we have anything saying it's impossible. It's currently an unknown. Many theories of how the universe works postulate that there are other universes out there.

Just because non-QM theory says something is possible does not mean it's possible.
Warp drive is an attempt to devise a metric which would let FTL without violating FTL in local frame. The whole logic is a bit going backward, they suggested desired solution/outcome and then asked what do we need to have it. Unsurprisingly, you would need negative energy which is flat out nonsensical in classical physics, and in Quantum mechanics negative energy implies going back in time. And for the outside observer in mostly flat metric warp drive powered ship is going back in time. In other words warp drive violates causality.

 

[bilby]

IS
NOT
REAL

It's FICTION, LP. It's not a real thing. It doesn't have mathematical properties you can speculate on because there is no such thing as "warp drive." It has every bit as much scientific grounding as Harry Potter and Star Wars, the only difference is that graphic artists get paid a lot more money to draw pictures of warp drive concepts whenever NASA need to get itself into the headlines.

Time travel paradoxes apply.

... as an example of all the ways FTL travel is mathematically impossible. The paradox isn't the problem, MATH is.

The Twins Paradox is a good example. It happens because all your observations have to be made at the speed of light, so if you were to travel FASTER than light, your observations would contradict each other. The resolution of this paradox is the basis of special relativity itself, because resolving this contradiction is done by treating ALL inertial reference frames as equivalent and thus logically valid. That's why it's called the "theory of relativity." Because anything you can say about the world around you is only valid relative to you.

General Relativity is more complicated because it deals with non-inertial reference frames where both observers are not actually equivalent. An observation made within a deep gravity well is only valid within that circumstance (which astronauts have learned to exploit with the Oberth Maneuver, giving themselves a free velocity boost during orbit transfers). Because of this, General relativity doesn't lead to paradoxical conclusions, so this is irrelevant.

Hyper drive

Also isn't real. In fact, it's so far from being real that NASA doesn't even have a graphic artist dreaming about it.

While nobody has built a warp drive there is math that describes how to do it, consistent with relativity. (Powering it is another matter...)

And while we aren't even to first base on a hyper drive, neither do we have anything saying it's impossible. It's currently an unknown. Many theories of how the universe works postulate that there are other universes out there.

Just because non-QM theory says something is possible does not mean it's possible.
Warp drive is an attempt to devise a metric which would let FTL without violating FTL in local frame. The whole logic is a bit going backward, they suggested desired solution/outcome and then asked what do we need to have it. Unsurprisingly, you would need negative energy which is flat out nonsensical in classical physics, and in Quantum mechanics negative energy implies going back in time. And for the outside observer in mostly flat metric warp drive powered ship is going back in time. In other words warp drive violates causality.

It works perfectly well; it's just that as soon as you switch on the prototype, it goes back in time to a point before it existed, and vanishes.

 

[Rayschism]

This does not sit well with me.

This sets the precedent of becoming the world's police, and I don't believe America should be the world police. We have many problems that we have to deal with.

Here are some questions.

We have the Bill Of Rights in America, which are primarily for American citizens. Some Amendments are there to protect us against things like unreasonable search and seizures, and against things like guilt by association.

So to that end, if we are the world's policemen, then do we apply the bill of rights to other people in other countries, especially when countries are sovereign and have sovereign rights for their citizens? And, if our BoR applies to those people in other countries, does that not make them American citizens? And wouldn't that make us an occupying country?

Now, here in America, we do have a problem with much or our own police officers. They are totally Authoritarian statist and think that they get to do whatever they want, violate our Constitutional rights however they please, and of course, they themselves are above the law themselves. In short there are a lot of bad and abusive police officers here in America, so why the hell would anyone want us to be the world's police since, those corrupt policemen will just violate those rights of the people in those sovereign countries in that same way?

That also means lawsuits and all kinds of other crap like that. Sorry, but I really don't want us to be the world's policemen.

On the other hand, I hope I just didn't make a slipper slope argument.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

While nobody has built a warp drive there is math that describes how to do it

That's called the Alcubierre Metric. It doesn't describe how to DO it, it describes what would happen IF we knew how to do it.

The reason we don't know how to do it is because the ACB Metric depends on the existence of something called "exotic matter." It is called that because we have no idea what it is, how it works, where to find it, what it would look like IF we found it, or whether or not it really even exists. "Exotic matter" is a hypothetical substance with exactly two properties: It has negative mass, and it has stable.

I meant what I said when I told you that you might as well calculate the voltage drop across Harry Potter's wand. Just because a mathematician dabbles in fiction doesn't make it any less fictional.

And while we aren't even to first base on a hyper drive, neither do we have anything saying it's impossible. It's currently an unknown.

It's FICTION. It was invented by a SCREEN WRITER. There's no room for "currently" there.

It works perfectly well; it's just that as soon as you switch on the prototype, it goes back in time to a point before it existed, and vanishes.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This does not sit well with me.

This sets the precedent of becoming the world's police...

You mean The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Invasion of Grenada, Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs, Mogadishu, The Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, the OTHER Gulf War, Afghanistan again, the drone strikes, and the Yemeni Civili War Except We Don't Call it That For Some Reason...

... didn't?

Seems like we're WAY past "precedent" here. I'd say it's more like a bad habit, but since it's been almost two decades since we actually had the military and political focus to actually fill that role, we're better off describing that as a delusion.

 

[Rayschism]

This does not sit well with me.

This sets the precedent of becoming the world's police...

You mean The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Invasion of Grenada, Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs, Mogadishu, The Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, the OTHER Gulf War, Afghanistan again, the drone strikes, and the Yemeni Civili War Except We Don't Call it That For Some Reason...

... didn't?

Seems like we're WAY past "precedent" here. I'd say it's more like a bad habit, but since it's been almost two decades since we actually had the military and political focus to actually fill that role, we're better off describing that as a delusion.

No.

I don't know much about the Korean War or the Panamanian Invasion, so I can't say.

But the core cause of Vietnam was that North Vietnamese were invading South Vietnam and committing atrocities against the civilian populace, so South Vietnam came to us for help.

And some of those were because of the perceived threat of the former Soviet Union. So no.

The motivation that was given for Syria was this is a horrible crime and we can't allow that. Which, in essence is a might makes right argument.

Afghanistan, well, the very core cause of the War On Drugs is a justified one, since drugs do destroy lives, and they are being used to hurt our people, and in some towns among the American Mexican border, there are shootings going on, between rival gangs and drug cartels and our police. Not to mention other assorted crimes.

And now we're only in Afghanistan for the money since we're bringing in 50$ billion dollars a year now. So even with Afghanistan I really don't think of that as being a police action. However, I don't know what to call it.

If it were up to me, I'd withdraw our troops from a lot of places. It's one thing to come to us for help. It's another thing to meddle. Good guys don't meddle and lie to the people about it.

But that's the thing I hate about this kind of situation. No matter how bad something is, keep repeating it over and over again until it's successful, and lie lie lie until your daddy takes the T-Bird away.

 

[J842P]

I don't know much about the Korean War or the Panamanian Invasion, so I can't say.

But the core cause of Vietnam was that North Vietnamese were invading South Vietnam and committing atrocities against the civilian populace, so South Vietnam came to us for help.

That's absurd. You really think that the US was motivated by humanitarian concerns when it decided to invade Vietnam?

 

[Rayschism]

I don't know much about the Korean War or the Panamanian Invasion, so I can't say.

But the core cause of Vietnam was that North Vietnamese were invading South Vietnam and committing atrocities against the civilian populace, so South Vietnam came to us for help.

That's absurd. You really think that the US was motivated by humanitarian concerns when it decided to invade Vietnam?

It's absurd that you think America just unilaterally decided to invade Vietnam without any kind of motivation. We were not the bad guys in Vietnam.

And we are going off topic. The topic is Syria and Trump wanting to be the world police.

 

[J842P]

That's absurd. You really think that the US was motivated by humanitarian concerns when it decided to invade Vietnam?

It's absurd that you think America just unilaterally decided to invade Vietnam without any kind of motivation. We were not the bad guys in Vietnam.

And we are going off topic. The topic is Syria and Trump wanting to be the world police.

I didn't say we invaded without any motivation, just not a humanitarian motivation.

We certainly were the bad guys in Vietnam. We murdered 100,000s of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians, not to mention we used chemical weapons en masse.

And it is certainly relevant to the current discussion regarding Syria, vis a vis humanitarian concerns, and the the rank hypocrisy of supporting our own Assad in the Kingdom of Saud and their current adventures in Yemen (where 10,000s of civilians have been killed).

 

[Rayschism]

It's absurd that you think America just unilaterally decided to invade Vietnam without any kind of motivation. We were not the bad guys in Vietnam.

And we are going off topic. The topic is Syria and Trump wanting to be the world police.

I didn't say we invaded without any motivation, just not a humanitarian motivation.

We certainly were the bad guys in Vietnam. We murdered 100,000s of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians, not to mention we used chemical weapons en masse.

And it is certainly relevant to the current discussion regarding Syria, vis a vis humanitarian concerns, and the the rank hypocrisy of supporting our own Assad in the Kingdom of Saud and their current adventures in Yemen (where 10,000s of civilians have been killed).

So did the Vietcong backed by the soviet Union.

Again, the South Vietnamese did ask us for our help.

This is not the same thing.

The similarity though is congress did not declare war on Vietnam which is why it was called a police action.

But, it was also a part of the Indochina wars and our cold war conflict with the former Soviet Union.

This with Syria is not the same thing. It is totally arbitrary.

Let me ask you this. If you are in a conflict with people who are truly out to kill you any way you can, are you going to sit by and let those people do what ever they want to, or are you going to fight them any way you can?

You may want to be honorable, but how can you be honorable when they will resort to any dirty rotten trick they will?

I do agree that we weren't the good guys in Vietnam, but to ignore the other things that were happening and focus only on America. well. we really the bad guys you want us to be.

With Syria there is no cold war going on. To the best of my knowledge, it is not part of a larger war. To the best of my knowledge, it is not backed by another superpower. I might be wrong on this, but I don't think so. So, i think that we'll have to agree to disagree. At least for now.

Except on the matter of America being the world's police. It is not something I will support. On this specific part I think we both agree.

 

[J842P]

I didn't say we invaded without any motivation, just not a humanitarian motivation.

We certainly were the bad guys in Vietnam. We murdered 100,000s of Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians, not to mention we used chemical weapons en masse.

And it is certainly relevant to the current discussion regarding Syria, vis a vis humanitarian concerns, and the the rank hypocrisy of supporting our own Assad in the Kingdom of Saud and their current adventures in Yemen (where 10,000s of civilians have been killed).

So did the Vietcong backed by the soviet Union.

Again, the South Vietnamese did ask us for our help.

This is not the same thing.

The similarity though is congress did not declare war on Vietnam which is why it was called a police action.

But, it was also a part of the Indochina wars and our cold war conflict with the former Soviet Union.

This with Syria is not the same thing. It is totally arbitrary.

Let me ask you this. If you are in a conflict with people who are truly out to kill you any way you can, are you going to sit by and let those people do what ever they want to, or are you going to fight them any way you can?

You may want to be honorable, but how can you be honorable when they will resort to any dirty rotten trick they will?

I do agree that we weren't the good guys in Vietnam, but to ignore the other things that were happening and focus only on America. well. we really the bad guys you want us to be.

With Syria there is no cold war going on. To the best of my knowledge, it is not part of a larger war. To the best of my knowledge, it is not backed by another superpower. I might be wrong on this, but I don't think so. So, i think that we'll have to agree to disagree. At least for now.

Except on the matter of America being the world's police. It is not something I will support. On this specific part I think we both agree.

I speak about the things America did because I am American and I care about what is done in my name. It is my duty as a citizen in a democracy, where we are ethically responsible for the actions of our democratically elected leaders. The war in Vietnam was us wading into a conflict that for the Vietnamese had roots 1000 years old dating from their struggles with independence from China. The French were relative new-comers to being foreign rulers over the Vietnamese people. We supported the French in their efforts to maintain Imperial dominion over the Vietnamese, and when they were finally thrown ousted, we install and back Diem in the South because he was rabidly anti-communist, not for any humanitarian considerations. But Diem had no legitimacy, and he himself murdered thousands of political opponents. His reign was so unpopular that people were burning themselves alive in protest. But this is the man we decide to back. And when we invaded, we were just another in a long line of tyrants seeking to rule over the Vietnamese. It was a struggle we were never going to win, born out of historical and cultural ignorance and naivety. The Vietnamese had no desire to be ruled by Moscow or Beijing, as our policy makers had assumed. I was told as much by Robert McNamara himself, and he made similar claims on record in his book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam." There is also an excellent documentary about the him called Fog of War which every American should watch, about McNamara and the lessons he thinks America needs to learn.

But back to Syria. Syria is currently backed by Russia, and has been their strategic allies for decades. The US State Department and CIA has been wanting to topple the Assad regime for decades to (surprise surprise). It's the same stupid thinking that got us into Vietnam, that we must counter Russian influence everywhere by any means possible, given to us by essentially the same people. It leads us to ignore the local context of the conflicts.

But yes, we agree that the US shouldn't be the world's police.

 

[Will Wiley]

Afghanistan, well, the very core cause of the War On Drugs is a justified one, since drugs do destroy lives, and they are being used to hurt our people,.

Afghanistan was not invaded because of drugs ???
Though it is probably a reason to keep the conflict going.

The CIA continues trafficking drugs from Afghanistan

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But the core cause of Vietnam was that North Vietnamese were invading South Vietnam and committing atrocities against the civilian populace, so South Vietnam came to us for help.

Bullshit. North and South Vietnam held a general election in which the majority voted for reconciliation. The United States VOIDED the election and then installed an incompetent puppet to rule the south. Then he got ousted, and we installed ANOTHER one, and then HE got ousted and we just sort of gave up but kept fighting anyway.

In addition to the fact that the entire conflict was none of our fucking business in the first place. We had no defense treaties, no economic interests and no military assets in Vietnam. The only reason to get involved there -- repeat, the ONLY reason -- was to stop a potential "domino effect" of communism on the assumption that the Vietnamese communists were very close to the Soviets (they weren't, but we didn't know that at the time).

The basic premise of the Cold War is that the United States had decided, all on its own, that Communism should be abolished or at least severely restricted and set out to do exactly this through military force. Beyond that very self-righteous political fantasy, Vietnam was entirely none of our business.

Afghanistan, well, the very core cause of the War On Drugs is a justified one...

Weren't you just complaining about the United States acting as the world's policeman? Yet you don't seem to have a problem with the United States using its military to impose its own drug laws on foreign countries, LITERALLY acting as a global police force?

Make up your mind.

 

[J842P]

Afghanistan, well, the very core cause of the War On Drugs is a justified one, since drugs do destroy lives, and they are being used to hurt our people,.

Afghanistan was not invaded because of drugs ???
Though it is probably a reason to keep the conflict going.

The CIA continues trafficking drugs from Afghanistan

Yeah, I sort of ignored this on the assumption that there was some editing mistake, because thinking that the war in Afghanistan was "at it's core" about drugs is rather... uninformed. Of course, no where near as bad as claiming that "the very core cause of the War On Drugs is a justified one." That is simply an evil statement.