Aside from him being a beery old swine, you mean? — Theologian

Haha, you either love him or hate him, I suppose. And by love, I mean intense adoration.

I'm interested, but honestly, I don't know enough to say. I have thought of tackling the Tractatus at some point. — Theologian

Have a look: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3558/ongoing-tractatus-logico-philosophicus-reading-group/p1

What are your thoughts about Ludwig Wittgenstein? You'll find his name dropped around here like crazy.

I don't feel as though all the alternatives were exhausted before her final decision.

Like what?

MDMA assisted psychotherapy, prescription antidepressants, more therapy. So on so forth.

Ooh... You got me there!

I had to think for a few seconds before that penny dropped! :wink: — Theologian

So, what's on your mind as of late in terms of philosophy? I loved Walden Two by B.F. Skinner, in my youth; but, thought it would only apply to places where the law is so strictly enforced that it leaves no room of indecision or apathy or angst.

I'm tempted to add "In all the wrong places." — Theologian

Q.E.D. Unless it's philosophy, right?

So far the only person here having a tantrum is you, S. — Theologian

He's just looking for love.

Kinda dramatic; but, gets the point across:

Here's the graph:

No, I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot and come off as a loon. 8 floors essentially vanished for 2.5s and the only reason they did was due to what NIST called "progressive failure".

And we haven't even touched on the fact that you would have to blast every 24 interior collums with some incredible heat to weaken them ALL to the point of essentially turning them into Swiss cheese, and this all happened near instantly.

Are you serious?

"Negligible support" would still provide resistance. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Anyway, take a second to review everything here:

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Part of the collapse was at free-fall acceleration, but not all of it. — Michael

Then explain how that is possible?

Wow, so we're actually going to argue over this ...

It's bedtime for me so I'm reluctant to get too excited; but, how did WTC7 collapse at free-fall acceleration?

Make a cup of joe and see this (qualified) analysis of WTC7's free fall collapse:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

Yes, tries and wallows to sleep.



It's just an insult to intelligence to assume all three buildings fell due to fires. Yeah, there was a third building...

So, it's been almost 18 years and I'm still a 9/11 skeptic... Ehh.

The worst and most ignorant ‘philosopher’ ever? ;) — I like sushi

Well, given that we are having a halcyon period of Wittgenstein reading groups, I suppose our collective efforts will result in the AI being a quietist.

The secret is out. This forum is actually an attempt to create the ultimate AI philosopher by building a database of responses to philosophical questions.

I for one am content with the situation.

Psychoceramics.

Well, just doing some fantasizing and the whole thing could potentially pay off for itself by leasing satellites to NATO allies... Hmm.

I see we are digressing here... I'm gonna go wallow now. See you guys in 8.

Uhh, @ernestm, what about China? I don't think the US wants an escalation with China, do they?

Tell Wallows. He started the thread. — Terrapin Station

Tell Wallows what? That the SDI was a hoax to bankrupt the Soviets? Because that's all I'm getting from @ernestm's logic hereabouts.

What in the world? Where did I say anything that suggested "surprise"?

Empty your mind. Read what I wrote above slowly. — Terrapin Station

Your concept doesn't really make sense if you care about my opinion.

First, you would need offensive laser systems to shoot down your enemy defense system.

Second, you couldn't do this without giving away your intentions about the purpose of your "defense" system.

Third, you would need to invade the domain of your enemy territory due to the fact that no nation would allow your satellites to operate above their territory.

So on so forth.

You mean a surprise attack? I don't see how this is possible to do without giving away your intentions and spoiling the whole plan by doing that. Essentially, you attack first, you lose.

Yeah, I was wondering how they intend to power these weapons by air-combat defense systems... Secrets unknown.

What's to stop someone else from building their own SDI to take out your SDI system? And so on. — Terrapin Station

Huu? It's a defence measure, not an offensive one. And, the more SDI's the better for peace and prosperity.

As I said, the real issue is cost effectiveness. — ssu

I find it hard to believe that laser systems are in some way inferior to conventional chemical-based munitions. It's like comparing an electric car to a gasoline one.

In regards to #1. Elon Musk is deploying satellites in LEO that can provide internet to the world. Can't the same logic apply to defensive warfare satellites?

Also, have you heard of the new 150+kW lasers to be equipped soon on F-35's and F-22's? Hypothetically four of them operating in unison *could* eliminate the threat of ICBM's?

Actually it's extremely difficult if not practically impossible even now. — ssu

Can you explain your reasoning as to why practically impossible? My limited understanding on the matter is the miniturization and power needs to make the idea viable from space to counter threats like ICBM's.

Let's not forget a thing called physics here: a satellite has fly quite fast not to fall back and a satellite in geostationary orbit is useless as it's so far away with over 35 000km (for comparison the ISS is in orbit 340km above the Earth). — ssu

Well isn't Elon Musk's Starlink a type of proof of concept for the idea of placing constellations of laser defense satellites orbiting the Earth...?

EDIT: I should also mention that if we do make satellites with lasers strong enough to melt ICBMs, they would probably be strong enough to harm surface targets as well. Somehow the idea of being cooked with radiation from space isn't any less terrifying than nuclear explosions... — VagabondSpectre

Well, getting a laser from space to be offence against ground units would require an incredibly powerful laser from space. I think, that a constellation of 1 MW lasers could do the job with ICBM's flying in close proximity to the height of the defensive measure during the entry-coasting-reentry phase that an ICBM goes through.

But there's a significant upshot that must be recognized: MAD not only prevents the usage of nuclear weapons, it also prevents direct conflicts between nuclear armed nations, for fear of escalation. — VagabondSpectre

No, your confusing equilibria points with something else. MAD led to an arms race between the US and the USSR. Each nation was in a frenzy to limit antiballistic measures as to not disrupt the balance of terror.

Lasers don't work against mirrors. — VagabondSpectre

True; but, the rationale isn't limited to laser weaponry, which in economical terms is and always will be cheaper to utilize than conventional munitions or even nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons.

And, in physical terms even mylar coating isn't 100% reflective. But, I digress on the issue due to lack of knowledge.

I mean, you can have other directed energy weapons implemented in space. The only hurdle is getting a sufficiently powerful laser or lasers to focus a beam in one spot long enough to melt the coating, whatever that coating may be.

Pretty fucking insane. I mean, to have a full proof measure of nullifying any attempts at nuclear war via Reagan's Star Wars and yet not pursuing it. As far as I'm aware it's an engineering problem as it stands...

No, actually it's a problem of a lack of sound and wholesome rationality.

As far as getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely? I say dream on.

What about Iran? I secretly think Trump is Islamophobic.

Warmongering? What else is new in the great states?

Well sure, but as you say, and I agree totally, the SDI is not an issue, especially now nuclear bombs can be carried by aircraft-carrier supersonic bombers. — ernestm

Yes; but, the whole appeal in my mind of Star Wars is to render the entire nuclear armament industry as irrelevant. Something unimaginable in the USA, I suppose.

@ernestm

We're getting there...

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-air-force-f-35s-f-15s-and-f-16s-might-soon-have-laser-weapons-60362