New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 09:02am Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14054 of 14061)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/Similitude_ForceRatios_sjk.htm is important, I think, and important here. It has an image that is about a meg, for clarity. It is taken from Chapter 3: Method of Similitude and Introduction to Fractional Analysis of Overall Equations. In Similitude and Approximation Theory by Stephen Jay Kline McGraw-Hill Book Company 1965. ( later reprinted by Springer-Verlag )

This part is from Section a. Use of Force Ratios (p 38-40) is general - and sets an example that I think is hopeful.

“The number of different kinds of forces found in nature is extremely large, and it is consequently impractical to deal with them all at once. Not only would this require a treatise larger in magnitude than this volume, but also it is seldom necessary. Since the purpose of this volume is to develop and examine methodology, it is sufficient to make an example of one field of analysis. The field chosen is fluid mechanics, since the method is well developed in that area and since the author is reasonably familiar with the subject. A table of basic dimensionless parameters similar to that developed for fluid mechanics can be prepared for use in other fields. What is more, the preparation of such tables is very instructive both as an exercise and as a reference in any given area of science and engineering. The construction of such a table enforces a general but especially careful consideration of the basic effects to be found in the field of study; it increases the physical understanding of the physical parameters normally employed; it provides standardization of these parameters for ready reference, and, most important, it provides a firm basis for checking for possible improvement of these parameters as further data is accumulated. "

With work and experience - what matters can become clear - and that can be very useful.

It takes some "going round and round" - but sometimes some very powerful things converge.

I think Steve would have approved of this thread - though he sometimes "raked me over the coals" after the manner of cantabb.

I think some things I said in a eulogy for Steve Kline at Stanford Chapel may be interesting, and fit here, as well. http://www.mrshowalter.net/klineul/

cantabb - 09:54am Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14055 of 14061)

rshow55 - 09:02am Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14054 of 14054)

I think Steve would have approved of this thread - though he sometimes "raked me over the coals" after the manner of cantabb.

It's NOT the matter of approving/disapproving this thread. It's the question of your use of it, and its purpose.

Other than highly repetitious, unfocused postings, you STILL have not answered (i) what is it specifically that you have been "working on" on this thread (ii) do you have access to any relevant information, other than what's been public and easily accessible to anyone, (iii) what do you think you have achieved so far, using whatever approach you say you have been using, and (iv) what's the basis of your various claims, re lives saved, people in government paying attention or learning from your postings, etc.

I've seen NO cogent answer to these questions, so far!

Some of the dedicated 'regulars' to these discussions, and the strong defenders of this forum for LONG have also presented NOTHING so far that can be considered a remotely satisfactory answer.

Asking you to focus is NOT 'raking you over'.

lchic - 01:54pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14056 of 14061)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Bush said he would confront Putin about Russia's determination to push ahead with the $800m (£500m) deal to build a nuclear power reactor in Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1050710,00.html

lchic - 02:16pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14057 of 14061)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Knowledge & Humanity

Intelligence v Business

Most analysts in Russia will tell you that the KGB folks around Putin feel that they haven't gotten as much as they deserve of the new wealth created since Russia became a market economy. And that's how many of these same analysts explain the confrontation we now see between the new business elite and the old intelligence elite.

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot3_092503.html?pagewanted=1

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense