This blog is designed specifically for education purposes and includes writings on History, Science, Reason, Teaching, the Philosophy of Life and a bit of sports and entertainment. All of the writing is my own original work unless otherwise stated. An AI editor is used for grammatical purposes only. Please feel free to comment.
There are several problems with the model. The first is that he assumed that the nucleus is made up of only positive sub-atomic particles. We now know that it consists of both protons which have a positive charge and neutrons which have no charge.
Rutherford also envisioned the atom as a mini-solar system with electrons orbiting the nucleus in a manner similar to planets going around the sun. This is not correct. His model does not take into account the concept of energy levels, orbital shape quantum mechanics and wave particle duality. All of these are critical in understanding the action of the electron and its pattern of motion.
Some say that the fall began with the First decline. We used
to call it World War One. The Great Civilizations of the West sacrificed its
young and paid a bigger price with its soul.
Hope died on the battlefields of the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele and
Cambrai. We fought each other to a standstill and then buried in the thick mud
any moral clarity that we may have had. The Old order disappeared and from the
flames of total war we birthed a toxic cynicism. We had earned the right to no longer believe
in ourselves and from that end onward it is as if we had been cast astray.
The fact that the war was an unfinished debt that had not
been repaid was all too evident. It was what allowed us to march head fast into
an even greater conflict almost two decades later. Once again the civilization
tried to take its own life. It beat back one barbarism (fascism) with another
(communism). The death rates soured. Millions were horded into camps and
massacred. The planet ached, screeching for relief as it succumbed to an even greater carnage.
For a time being we
rolled back evil but the price we paid was extreme. D-Day, Stalingrad,
El-Alamein and Midway were celebratory victories that we would not enjoy for long. Europe was finally gutted. It had been reduced to a tattered mess from whence it would exist as
a plaything in an ideological struggle between the American juggernaut and the
Soviet Totalitarian state.
More than that it couldn’t offer. Its locus of power
that had peaked in the century before was gone and like the Ottomans before it
now owned the moniker of the sick old man. Past glories from the era of Louis
XIV, Napoleon, Bismarck and Disraeli could only sustain it so long. Without a
soul the great cathedrals, museums, galleries and palaces that has shone with
such brightness not too long ago would grow dimmer with each passing decade.
We all lost a lot and we didn’t replace it with much. What
we had gained was the technological power to render ourselves obsolete.In this we could rejoice.
No they aren’t. When King Solomon, the son of David, died he was succeeded by his son Rehoboam in 930 BCE. Unfortunately Rehoboam proved to be a terrible ruler and soon afterward the country split into two kingdoms - Israel in the North (consisting of ten tribes) and Judah in the South. The former included the cities of Schechem and Samaria. The latter contained the city of Jerusalem and was comprised of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It is from Judah that the word Jew originates.
Judah would continue to be governed largely by rulers from the House of David (although some have disputed this). The Kingdom of Israel existed from 930 -772 BCE and was finally destroyed by the Assyrians (leading to the mythology of the Ten Lost tribes). Judah survived until the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE that followed the destruction of the First Temple.
Ah the Annus mirabilispapers of 1905. What a wonderful year that was for in the history of Physics.
Looking back with hindsight I would argue that three of the papers were worthy of Nobel Prizes. The Photoelectric Effect paper is now a moot point as Einstein actually won his Nobel Prize in Physics (in 1921) as a consequence of that paper’s insight viz. the development of a relationship between the energy of an incoming photon, the work function of the metal and the kinetic energy of the ejected electron.
The two papers dealing with Special Relativity and Mass-energy equivalence (a function of special relativity) respectively are widely considered today to be far greater contributions to our understanding of physics than the Photoelectric Effect paper but at the time the consequences of both papers were extremely controversial. Original work that shatters a paradigm always will be. It is for this reason that they were not granted the necessary accolades at the time.
However they are both deserving of a Nobel Prize in their own right. No question about that. Our very understanding of nuclear and particle physics hinges on each of them.
The fourth paper dealing with Brownian motion helped convince several physicists, who were somewhat of the skeptical the notion of atoms, to change their minds but I do not believe that it in itself is significant enough to warrant a Physics Nobel Prize.
In any case three out of four is an unbelievable haul. Well done Albert.
Joe Biden is part of the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party. In colloquial terms we would refer to him as a moderate modern ‘liberal’. This of course differs substantially from the original definition of Liberal, that places emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual over that of the collective (see the writings of Adam Smith and John Locke).
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Biden is a collectivist. He also falls under the broader rubric of ideological progressivism which today encompasses virtually all of the Democratic Party to varying degrees. His historical political position fuses together a support for overarching big government regulations, various aspects of neoliberal trade policy and a strong deference to progressive values within the cultural milieu.
In addition he envisions America’s future as necessarily linked to the alphabet soup of internationalist organizations who transcend the bounds of the old nation state. He has likely rationalized this stance, which ties into the ever broadening footprint of global corporate power, as being consistent with the supposed ‘right’ direction of the movement of history (how very Hegelian)
Biden 2020 aligns very closely with Barack Obama whose coattails he employed to navigate through the minefield of a tricky early primary campaign (despite a late endorsement by the former POTUS). He is not in anyway an original thinker and never has been. In foreign policy for one he offers a strong record of dismal failure, whose only consistency has been in erring with the initiative that is least likely to work. G-d help the Middle East if he brings in his own flawed version of an Iran Deal for example. Now there's no denying it: Obama's failed Iran deal wasn't worth the cost
Uncle Joe’s greatest strength though is an inner sense of knowing who to attach himself to. If there is a slip stream that he can run behind Joe Biden will be there - defective text message and all. He also has perfected the notion of appearing to lead while in all actuality following.
Source: The Mercury News
Heading a party that at times seemed only unified by the notion of ‘Orange Man Bad’, Biden’s greatest challenge will involve balancing the disparate segments of a fragile alliance that includes the far-left, neo-conservative interventionists, old school unionists, big tech, woke collectives of all stripes, hordes of nanny-staters and his mainstream base.
At 78. with the early signs of cognitive decline being all too apparent this won’t be easy. I actually pray for his health. Up until this point has been protected by a pro-Dem media that specializes in asking him softball questions akin to what he had for dinner. However nothing lasts forever and if he fails to deliver his sojourn in the White House Basement can move rapidly into the zone that will prove extremely uncomfortable. Remember he will be leading a United States that looks more divided than at any time since Reconstruction and his opponents look to be extremely energized.
Yes he does. Very much so. Together with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei (1564–1616) is the most influential physicist of all time. Here is a list of his contributions
Source: thoughtco.
Articulated the concept of Inertia - that property of matter that resists a change in motion. This understanding forms the very foundation of Newton’s First Law of Motion. Newton would make use of the notion of inertia to formulate the famed Newtonian synthesis that was the final blow for the long held Geocentric model.
He is widely considered to be the Father of Experimental Physics. Without empirical evidence science is ultimately flying blind. Galileo’s emphasis on such methodology of action serves as the cornerstone of modern science. Take note theorists going off on mathematical tangents.
Was the first to see the four large Jovian Moons (Gannymede, Io, Europa and Callisto) plus the rings of Saturn (identified in 1610). He used his own version of a refracting telescope to do so. Galileo also studied the details of the phases of Venus. The latter provided some evidence in support of the Heliocentric model. The former showed that it is possible for bodies to orbit a structure that isn’t the Earth.
Used slopes and inclined planes to work out the acceleration due to gravity showing that it is independent of mass. This contradicted the Aristotelian understanding of the phenomenon. In addition he was able to show that the distance traversed by a uniformly accelerated body is directly proportional to the time interval of travel squared.
Challenged the church orthodoxy of the period regarding the geocentric model in writing that was understandable to the lay person. This was an important precursor toward the early development of the scientific enlightenment. He paid for this during his lifetime by being placed under house arrest for heresy.
Showed that the Period of the pendulum is independent of its amplitude of oscillation but is dependent on the length of the pendulum string.
In short Galileo deserves every ounce of credit that he has received not just in the practice of science but in the philosophy as well.
The biggest reason for this is that there are many players and movements in politics, the media, popular culture, academia and education who are going out of their way to sow division in the country for both ideological and will-to-power reasons. This has caused a stronger bifurcation into political camps that have polarized the nation rendering the possibility of presidential landslides a likely phenomenon of the past.The nation is divided along key fault lines and this is a tragedy.
It wasn’t of course always like that.
Source: Bored Panda
Historically presidential elections have been are fought over one or two issues that resonate in the minds of the majority who vote. In addition many people vote based on personality/character of candidate. At times voters are on the same page and other times they are not.
The election results reflect this. Such back and forth pattern switches have consistently occurred in the US as well as other countries for that matter (look at Canada in 1984, 1993, 2006, 2011 and 2015 or the UK in 1983, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2010 and 2019).
This in itself is not necessarily a negative aspect of the political milieu although it could be if the divisions appear to intensify with time to the point where they become irreconcilable. I suspect that we are seeing this right now.
Now the term landslide is somewhat of a nebulous and oft abused label. One person’s landslide can be another’s near miss. We see this with 2016 and 2020. However similar arguments can be made for 1968 and 1992 once you factor in the impact of a strong Third Party candidate (Wallace in 68 and Perot in 92). The electoral college map also has a tendency of exaggerating voter pattern deltas by its binary win-take-all approach.
However there have been several elections that even the most jaundiced partisan would have to concur were clearly landslides. FDR’s wins from 1932–1944, Ike’s back-to-back triumphs in the 1950s, LBJ in 1964 and of course the two mothers of all landslides - Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984. One could also make the landslide case for Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Clinton in 1996 and Obama in 2008.
However all of these apparent drubbings were punctuated by the close contests of 1948, 1960, 1976, 2000 and 2004.
So what explains pattern breaks?
To answer this we have to dig into the key issues that defined each election. Political decisions ideally ought to be made by examining the nuances of the full scope of proposed policy differences, but this is rarely the case. One or two talking points are all that matter.
Source: Cool Pun Discovery Engine
So first lets see how this impacts the landslides.
FDR for example won his first two elections on the mantra of fighting the Great Depression. While the efficacy of his methodology is justifiably disputed it certainly carried the day in 1932 and 1936. In 1940 with WWII underway in several theatres he could counterbalance a popularity drop off elsewhere with the bounce that war normally gives the incumbent holder of the Oval Office. Despite some grassroots opposition the country largely rallied around the flag and FDR profited from this sentiment.
Eisenhower like FDR before him could also unify the country along a common theme. He had war hero status, personal popularity and successfully took the baton from his predecessor Truman to fight the Cold War against the Soviet menace. It was this single issue that would ensure victory (albeit against an opponent who struggled twice to relate to the average voter).
LBJ’s landslide came courtesy of the JFK popularity bump and the fact that his opponent, Barry Goldwater, could be easily, and in my opinion dishonestly, pigeon-holed as an extremist. Nixon in 1972 carried the day in an ironically similar fashion with George McGovern staring down the receiving end of the extremist label in ideological reverse.
Ronald Reagan was successful in that he exuded positivity and a transition to policies that emphasized economic and military strength in the face of the “Evil Empire’. He also had the luxury of weak opponents who seemed to articulate a malaise. They were sitting ducks prepped to augment the appeal of the Gipper, whose long coattails helped George H.W. Bush to victory in 1988 against a cumbersome Michael Dukakis.
Source: Historycentral.com
Bill Clinton’s landslide in 1996 came courtesy of a strong economy, a centrist approach and an opponent - Robert Dole - who seemed to be the GOP version of Walter Mondale at least with respect to how he managed his campaign.
Barack Obama in 2008 also faced a weak opponent in John McCain (who was well past his expiration date). Like Reagan, Obama exuded charisma and played the game of politics well. In addition he understood the relevancy of the new media in a way that superseded all that went before. It paid dividends especially at a time when the economy had sunk to a low.
So what about the close calls?
Harry Truman in 1948 faced a tough fight in a very splintered election. It was the Post-War challenge and when a party had been in power for so long as was the case with the Democrats it was natural to assume that change was imminent (look at Churchill v Atlee in the UK). However Truman scrapped it out in the trenches and defied media predictions to emerge victorious. In his case it was mind over matter.
Kennedy in 1960 edged out Nixon in what some have described as the most corrupt election since WWII (although 2020 may eclipse that title). Like 1948 it came down to character and in this case JFK had the edge over the former VP. Eisenhower cast a big shadow but it wasn’t large enough to safeguard Nixon.
Source: Britannica.com
In 1976 Gerald Ford was up against the baggage of Watergate as much as the opposition of Jimmy Carter who played it smart by outflanking Ford to the right thereby guaranteeing a win in what can only be described as the last stand of the Rockefeller Republican.
2000 and 2004 were the George W Bush wins. The former was largely an Al Gore loss and a case of what-might-have-been. The latter was Bush wringing dry the embers of a rally-around-the-flag drive against an opponent whose deficit with respect to inspirational quality matched a moribund sense of creativity. It was a win by default.
What all of these close calls had in common though was the lack of a powerful consensus to ensure a landslide. There was division but I do not believe it was as stark as it is now (although 2004 was a precursor of what was to follow).
So what about 2016 and 2020?
When Two Tribes go to War (I really hope not) source: Teachwire. Thanks to Frankie Goes to Hollywood.
Without a common enemy provoking cross party revulsion, such as Nazi Germany and after that the Soviet Union, it was only natural that the country would turn on itself. Peace can be a killer and the weight of being the lone superpower can prove too much.
Each of these elections is the political culmination of the stratification of American society that has been ongoing since the 1990s. Some can point back further to the impact of the Gramscian march through the institutions that was given a significant oxygen boost by the radicalism of the 1960s and the 1970s.
Whatever it is you now have two versions of America. The one views the country’s fate as intrinsically tied to a globalist infrastructure that will mesh corporate economics, identitarian politics with cradle-to-grave welfare. Policy will be defined for the good of all by the knowledgeable other. The alternative values freedom of the individual and the exceptionally of the nation. It refuses to sit still while it sees the the Republic that it values burn. The elections in 2016 and 2020 have highlighted this.
Donald Trump was not the cause of this divide. He merely exposed it for all to see.
What we have is gigantic chasm that has been simmering for decades and it is here that we witness the most critical break from the fluctuating patterns of yesteryear. As it stands there is a close split by numbers and this will continue to grow. Calls for unity ring hollow if they do not coincide with action.
What should people even unify around? Both sides have markedly different values. However what is certain is that as institutions atrophy and weaken under political game play the foundations will crumble with obvious repercussions. It is at the core that we see the crux of the problem. Once these shared fundamentals go how do you save the marriage? and is it indeed worth saving?
