So many impractical hells
built quick with fine whistles and bells
threw good time under buses well
leaving spent uranium shells
convenient half-truths to sell
before the other world map fell
an overclass owning war banks
sharpening stank-rising smells.
Mathematical notation
exponents eve up convection
dimension crushing construction
superscripts add close instructions
knot molecular prescriptions
relativistic descriptions
elicit belief convictions
salvation is the only way
through the dark day of destruction.
So the common enemy
union history blunts fact
power drove the Euro
crushed lives without much tact
The rich victimized many poor
open door dreams through ages
royal stages of media fronts
racked up blunt wealth, things, pages
Dark demolitions guide them
plush up lem, turnover tides
confusion guides over loss
thug big boss did not confide.
I thought I would write a note about my current understanding of cosmology concerning a Universe. That is just one Universe at a time and what goes into it rather than multiple Universes concurrently, sequentially or in branches that would seem to complicate the presentation of a description of the basic elements of a simple Universe. My use of terms like branes and membranes may be inexact and/or differ from the usual lexicon meanings of theoretical physics, unsurprisingly to me because I am not a physicist. When for example I try to define the meaning of a dimension as meaning a brane, it is uncertain to me that anyone in the world of theoretical physics would agree in my use of either term. If one has three branes one could use three dimensions then as the principle value for devising math formulae regarding the dimensions of the universe I would think.
What is a brane? The initial size of a brane may be unknown. A brane may not have size until it encounters other brains, or alternatively it might have a finite size implicitly. Where there branes before the time=0 initial moment of the membrane universe? Presumably, although if time is implicit midst interacting branes solely, there may have been no time before time=0. God said ‘Let there be light’ is the most logical explanation for some cause before time existed (He being eternal). Is there an infinite number of branes existing as zero dimension points with standard or different texture/composition implicitly? Can spirit or as Leibniz said, one dimension monads exist apart from God? Theological and cosmological metaphysics can move through a spectral range of speculation easily. It is mathematical physics that need do something with matter and energy rather than leave metaphysics out in the realm of contemplation.
A universe has dimensions and field that interact together creating a concatenated phenomenon that is experienced as a Universe by sentients arising within it. It is worth realizing or regarding a brane as equivalent to a dimension, and stipulate that a brane may have unlimited size as a vector. Three branes interacting together would be a three dimensional membrane and the motion of each brane initially before time equal zero at the beginning of the membrane would determine the direction of time. Time is an apparent phenomenon that is implicit in the passage of a membrane through another. Each point in time is a point in the membrane comprised of the concatenation of branes.
I suppose it is theoretically possible that the increased rate of expansion of the Universe shortly after its start was caused by the introduction of another brane to the membrane. I don’t believe that it is reasonable to infer much about the size of branes prior to their concatenated state as a membrane by the time that passed from the Big Bang to the end of the inflaton. It is interesting to consider though for one has difficulty in thinking about branes-for-themselves or branes-in-themselves. If branes are singularities what are they made of and where are they before encountering others to make up a membrane-universe. The ancillary question arises; how do things occur in time before time or motion exists?
Branes could be compared to those glass slide rectangles of glass one places under a microscope lenses in a metaphor or analogy- since they are maybe zero or one-dimensional in-themselves. Dimension branes would be somewhat ghostly or permeable to other branes and could pass through other slides branes they encounter. Branes may have a charge or not. A charge might just be a brane structure/composition orientation. If two interacting branes were the Big Bang then a third brane arriving shortly thereafter was the inflaton continuing inflation until normalized interacting with the other two branes. If the Universe membrane began expanding faster after seven billion years maybe the branes had passed some balancing position / point of no return between them, letting them move away faster with less restraint or drag from each other. There may be no limit to the number of characteristics or qualities one could make up concerning branes and brain relationships in a membrane including how they pass through one another or encounter one another or how their fields interact with one another or if branes increase themselves in dimensions adding to themselves the dimensions of other branes so that an initial zero-dimension or one dimension brane becomes a two-dimension or three dimension brane etc.
Branes are perhaps equivalent to fields, A lecturer in physics answered a question about how zero-dimension points can exist, and if I recall correctly the reply was something to the effect that there are no intervals on a line (or vector), and so a point might have being in one dimension yet have no existence in other dimensions. Logically one could extrapolate that a one dimensional brane could be monistic and of any texture; even spirit, and yet have no existence in any other dimension until it interacts with other branes as a membrane-universe.
I wondered how fields that are equivalent to branes could allow contingent particles to exist like those present in the standard model of physics, yet the presence of a Higgs field to slow down massless particles and differentiate them in the process from massless particles thus yielding an appearance of mass with all of the energy and spin characteristic of sub-atomic particles and fields acting upon or among them seems natural enough. I of course wouldn’t be too technical on any of this; just consider part of the picture briefly and well enough to make a note about the paradigm of branes, dimensions and membranes.
If the Universe has just three dimensions the fourth dimension may be time, yet it may not. Instead it is just the change of location of the branes and contingent fields, energy and mass of them within the membrane universe. Dark energy and dark mass could obviously have innumerable explanations, and I believe that one paradigm to account for them could be presently unknown characteristics of branes interacting together in the membrane. That is so obvious that I suppose I shouldn’t bother to mention that, yet not being a physicist nothing for me concerning cosmology is too obvious or beneath value to consider.
Sure there may be countless branes in the thing that is contains branes and membrane-universes. If time is an intrinsic phenomenon of motion between brane interacting (and branes could interact in numerous ways according to their qualities, polarization(s) and inertial characteristics) then I don’t know why one should feel free to find some sort of time branch for a Multiverse that branches infinitely as if it were every possible number along a line of rational numbers that branches from each point in every vector-brane-dimension infinitely {that would also seem to require that branes act as membranes-in-themselves}). I am not saying that a time or sequence branching Multiverse with explicit and implicit time that inherently violates principles of relativity isn’t possible, or that a Multiverse with a set of force values comparable paradigmatically with the present universe being the basis for a Multiverse isn’t possible, I am simply considering the possible paradigm of a level four Multiverse in just one membrane-Universe in regard to time as motion; with the primary difference being that instead of sentient experience moving through a static membrane in a Everettian paradigm of all possible Universes already existing and mind experience switches through them to satisfy criteria of Schrodinger's wave function, time actually occurs to an observer located anywhere in the 3-brane membrane universe as change.
While the west Anglo-American imperial collusion is racing ahead at 300 m.p.h to wrap up the Clinton-Major-N.A.T.O. eastward expansion policy with every economic and military measure it can think of to defeat Russian resistance, there has been a paucity of consideration about what a post-Putin Russia would be like. Would it be a Utopia with Democrat Potty style sissified leaders that only war in just wars benevolently upon others as when President Obama intervened in Libya with a ‘kinetic military action’ to end Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi’s ( c. 1942 – 20 October 2011)s regime because he attacked the United States and Britain, because he wasn’t liked or his policy wasn’t liked or whatever?
Game theory can consider various scenarios and outcomes of for many models including political and geographic changes. The Anglo-American team of 1994 that laid the foundation for the return of Cold War and even hot war for Russian reconquista of Ukraine as an alternative to a logical peaceful development inclusive of Russia in a free enterprise pact across Western Eurasia probably didn’t consider things well with game theory modeling. Any rational historian should have known that cutting the heart out of historical Russia by removing Crimea and Ukraine would destabilize western relations with Russia in the future. Politicians would have been better off not letting their greed and lack of political wisdom get the best of them.
Game theory presently might show several possible outcomes for the present sorry state of affairs in Europe and Ukraine. I need rely on dead reckoning because I lack mathematical training in game theory, and have only a philosophical interest in it. It is obvious though that western and especially British and U.S. leaders are throwing everything they can into reinforcing their initial expansion premise that dibbed Ukraine as a sovereign nation that could be filled up with immigrants from the west and maybe eventually added to N.A.T.O. as the basic post-cold war tool for E.U. expansion and hegemony over Russia. Presently former British P.M.s are militating for a new international war crimes tribunal to convict President Putin. Probably the court would be located in a N.A.T.O. country so impartiality could be assured.
Loading up the tray against President Putin and Russian rich people and those that support the present government including sanctions on members of the DUMA is an effort to set up the possible elimination of what is regarded as a conservative Russian government to replace it with a sissified government (I got the word sissified from my spell checker when I used a different word, and remembered that the country name that the Clinton-Blair-Yeltsin team selected for the post-Soviet New Liberal World Order was Community of Independent States or C.I.S. (phonetically pronounced ‘Sis’ although President Yeltsin might have been unaware of the joke in that). In my opinion President Putin is a leader of a democracy with extraordinary Presidential powers given constitutionally to protect against external threats. He has reinforced the Yeltsin written constitution and built up free enterprise structures and constitutional government from the wreckage of the former Soviet Union. Replacing Putin probably will produce leadership to the right rather than the wuss. Replacing the entire government infrastructure might result in the break up of the Russian Federation into numerous smaller nuclear armed powers led by extremists that could accomplish in one move the ditching of sanctions against Russia and a sorting out of politics to let people vote with their feet. That scenario might produce several nations led by extremists and supportive loyalists.
What are the West’s Games Theory Models for Post-Putin Russia
I am briefly considering the outcomes of some sort of Putin defeat because of a successful western outcome in a moderately protracted Ukrainian war. I don’t believe President Putin would surrender to the west or be surrendered for war crimes or have his head parted from his body due to snap-hanging like former Dictator Saddam Hussein. Instead I would guess he might go into retirement at a Dacha with a good location and nice fishing at a lake somewhere while the Russian Federation disintegrated and the chaos of a destabilized Russia set the scene for numerous theoretical new state structures, limited nuclear wars in Eurasia between rogue missile launching personnel etc, possible biological war with the new post-state weaponized designer virus products that any PhD in biology might create in basement lab and a renewal of extremist Muslim terrorism. Great stuff for action-adventure-thriller novel writers incidentally, that could go on for twenty years or so while global warming containment efforts are put on hold indefinitely.
In my opinion such developments are all bad outcomes of the present state of the British-U. S. ‘We are the law and will prosecute you until hell freezes over with everything we have besides nuclear bombs because we don’t want you to vaporize us although you can vaporize yourself if you want’ single minded approach to the issue. I just wonder where the path they have set the world upon leads, and if any of the destinations are as good ones, or all just shitholes.
Of course a unified Russia could remain even if Ukraine sees the retreat of Russian forces. Presumably sanctions would continue on practical Russia for a lengthy period of time and political and financial realignments deleterious to not just Eurasia or especially Russia might follow. The optimal post-Cold war developments have certainly been lost already and were doomed to fail since 1994 perhaps, yet something should be done to develop models for renormalizing Russian-Western relations politically as soon as possible through diplomacy as well as condign measures ans success of the west current tunnel vision.
In democracies and corporatist entities military leadership is under civilian control. That is, a political leader controls military operations and directs military goals. Generals are given the task of carrying out the orders of the politician. The political goals may not necessarily be realistic goals militarily, nor the most efficient military goals to capture land or cities for political purposes. Many modern wars have manifested mistaken political judgment for beginning, continuing and ending. It is possible they are the result of democracy and democratic civilian leadership of the era (not to imply there are no other political structures that cause modern war). I will comment on a bit of that phenomena.
The stalled Russian attempted conquest of Ukraine is a case in point. The Russian President Vladimir Putin probably is the military director of the production and has or had (they may have changed since the start of the war) particular goals in mind. Maybe that was complete capture of all of the Ukraine along existing map definitions as it were. That goals may have been militarily unrealistic. Perhaps he should have simply have ordered the capture of large areas of land that would make a solid future state with good enough waterfront access, knowing that reinforcement of those areas against counter-attack and insurgents would be necessary to achieve a stable new normal as N.P.R. might like to say.
While the Russian military executed unattainable plans in the Ukraine, President Biden executed an exit strategy from Afghanistan earlier in another example of the power of a politician over a military of a corporatist entity. It was feasible to garrison troops to reinforce the Afghan government from secure bases over the long term, yet the President instead choose a precipitate withdrawal of all U.S. military forces that led directly to the collapse of the Afghan government. A few months later he opted to pitch in billions of dollars of advanced weapons to the Ukraine war making a decision to deepen and lengthen the period of conflict in Ukraine. Democrat leaders prefer stand off wars with advanced weapons and proxy soldiers that let others than constituents die.
The conduct of the Afghan war and effort to pacify the nation will be analyzed for years by military experts, as was a similar effort in the Vietnam war. Each conflict was under direct political control of American military forces, and each effort resulted in failure perhaps for different reasons. It may be that the disconnect between political leadership and military education is an underlying cause of the failure for politicians to set realistic military objectives in American wars of the 20th and 21st centuries and perhaps presently, by the Russian President in Ukraine.
One wonders at what point President Putin will decide to stop investing military force to take over cities that are easy to defend even as they become rubble, by a minority of force, as rats can find holes midst the concrete to strike out at snakes seeking to devour them. Large cities are bait to attract mobile armored vehicles that have needed to conceal their location from anti-tank weapons since the Cold War. Tanks today are mobile artillery and if in the open, concealed and unbunkered, are easy prey for a variety of weapons systems. New Russian tanks are faster and cheaper than U.S. tanks and actually quite good, yet rockets and drones to destroy them are far cheaper.
Civilian politicians may tend to regard tanks as big dogs able to put down runty civilian opposition in a significant mistake of judgment. If there is no modern rocketry in opposition that may have some truth to it. Civilians should stay out of the way of tanks.
In the present conflict in Ukraine it is challenging to know what President Putin actual objectives are or if they are feasible. American intentions are clear enough; unlimited supply of lightweight modern weapons to a Ukrainian resistance that would protract the conflict to defrappe Russian consolidation of regions of control over Ukraine, besides economic siege war against Russia itself to cut off the supply line to the military effort in Ukraine and lever political opposition to what is regarded in the west as an executive war by a dictator- perhaps in some error since Russia has a democracy on paper at least and President Putin is acting in accord with constitutional powers conferred in lineal progression from President Boris Yeltsin who in effect wrote the constitution of the Russian confederation that has since been amended several times.
Some would argue against a description of Russia as a democracy or a free society. In the modern era though dispensational democracy might be a better description of the relation between corporate political power, political leadership and ordinary citizens. Nearly unconditional freedom exists for many or most concurrent with legal and illegal restrictions on freedom for others deemed worthy of repression by those with power. Modern free societies do not presently exist unconditionally or even commonly so far as I know; certainly not in the United States.
Perhaps politicians that direct militaries are comparable to CEOs that hire private contractors to construct project for them . Often contractors take on projects bidding a certain price knowing there will be cost overruns the politician or the politicians financiers don't know about. Former President G.W. Bush said before the Iraq war that the mission would cost about 50 billion dollars. The actual cost was in the trillions. Many of the billions went out in non-competition contracts to favorite contractors. Because competent military people do not control the political designs or mission strategy there is generally a high likelihood that even advanced militaries can fail in modern, limited war ; the cost to civilians as collateral damage may be very high.
