"Drafting," I basically understand. What means "Aero push"? It seems to suggest applying a force to a car in front, by following closely and sort of compressing the air between the two cars. Is this what you mean? And if so, then does it represent a significant force?
Actually, the length of a day has not remained constant, and was longer, in Earth's past (while it has continued to cool, and contract). In fact, the tsunami in Indonesia, a year or so ago, reportedly involved a decrease, in the length of a day, by a few microseconds (presumably, this was a result of conservation of angular momentum, following a subduction of a tectonic plate).
The tsunami was caused by an earthquake (in this case, undersea), which represents a sudden release, by movement, of built-up stress where tectonic plates had been forced together (cause of force: uncertain, but generally thought to be convection currents, deep below the surface). A "subduction" is a type of tectonic movement wherein the edge of one plate slides under the edge of another. The result may be a change of distribution of Earth's mass, such that more mass becomes closer to Earth's rotational axis (since a subduction generally represents a denser, oceanic plate's sliding under a less dense, continental plate); this represents a decrease in Earth's moment of inertia, and a consequent increase in Earth's angular speed, since the product of these, is constant. So, faster rotation of Earth -> shorter day.
Last edited by David33, .
The Coriolus effect is, indeed, a result of something (especially including the world) spinning around. It can apply to anything that is in motion, relative to the spinning thing, although perhaps (as in the case of drains) not noticeably. Differences in atmospheric pressure, cause such motion (of the atmosphere).
Last edited by David33, .
I'm not sure that's true. They are presumably attempting to justify the killing of Pearl, by providing what they hope will be an explanation that others will regard sympathetically, rather than regarding them simply as murderers. If they were satisfied with only what makes sense to them, they would seem to have no cause for explaining their behavior, at all; they would be justified in their own minds, and that would be enough.
I don't know what would be a better solution. The alternatives seem to be that either everyone makes up his own mind, and we expect that eventually the truth will become commonly recognized, or we assume that the truth is already known, by someone, and we sustain that "truth" by forcibly suppressing any expression of disagreement with it. The latter is really not a solution, since it leaves the problems of who that someone is, and how it is known that he knows the truth, which leads back to the first solution.
Certainly, one can become impatient with letting everyone discover the truth on his own, or through communication, if one supposes that he already knows the truth. One can even doubt that the truth would ever become commonly recognized. And objectively, the process can be regarded as inefficient. But I cannot think of what would otherwise be "the best solution," absent a source of commonly recognized omniscience. So, the solution "that we use now" seems, to me, to be also "the best solution" that is currently practicable or likely to become practicable. If you have a better proposal, then I'm interested in considering it.
Last edited by David33, .
From a physics point-of-view, the essential question is whether the airplane accelerates through the air, to takeoff airspeed (sufficient to provide lift greater than gravity). Such acceleration is determined by the net force, acting upon the airplane; if there is a net forward force, on the airplane, then the airplane will accelerate forward.
The airplane engines apply a force to a mass of air, pushing it backward. According to Newton's 3rd Law, that air mass simultaneously pushes the airplane forward, with an equal and opposite force. So, there is a forward force on the airplane, from the air.
Is there a backward force acting upon the airplane, from the conveyor belt? Generally not a significant one, since any such force would have to be communicated to the airplane, through friction at the wheel bearings, which friction is quite small in magnitude. Instead, the conveyor belt would produce a torque on the wheels, and cause them to rotate unless there is a greater-than-or-equal, opposite torque on the wheels, produced by bearing friction - which, again, is very unlikely since the wheel bearings are designed to minimize friction.
Generally, the airplane could be noticeably pushed backward by the conveyor belt, only if bearing friction torque is equal to (or greater than, which is not, in itself, possible) conveyor belt torque, thus preventing the wheels from rotating and allowing the backward (linear) force of the conveyor belt, to be the predominant force on the airplane. This would require that the conveyor belt not push very hard, against the wheels.
It can be recognized, btw, that if such a conveyor belt support were spun, all of a sudden at high speed, the wheels would rotate and the airplane would remain almost still because of its inertia. This indicates that the conveyor belt cannot apply much of a backward force to the airplane; even if a great force is applied to the conveyor belt, accelerating it quickly, very little of that force is actually transmitted, by friction in the wheel bearings, to the airplane; the conveyor belt could - at best, and if acting alone on the airplane - accelerate it backward, only very slowly, thereby demonstrating only a small, backward force on the airplane.
Anyway, considering everything, there is a net forward force on the airplane, due to the engine's propulsive, forward force's being greater than the wheel bearings' frictional, backward force (and any air drag on the airplane). So, the airplane will accelerate forward, to takeoff speed.
P.S. - The speed of the conveyor belt wouldn't matter; as long as the wheels were rotating, the frictional force would be the same, regardless of the speed of rotation.
The airplane engines apply a force to a mass of air, pushing it backward. According to Newton's 3rd Law, that air mass simultaneously pushes the airplane forward, with an equal and opposite force. So, there is a forward force on the airplane, from the air.
Is there a backward force acting upon the airplane, from the conveyor belt? Generally not a significant one, since any such force would have to be communicated to the airplane, through friction at the wheel bearings, which friction is quite small in magnitude. Instead, the conveyor belt would produce a torque on the wheels, and cause them to rotate unless there is a greater-than-or-equal, opposite torque on the wheels, produced by bearing friction - which, again, is very unlikely since the wheel bearings are designed to minimize friction.
Generally, the airplane could be noticeably pushed backward by the conveyor belt, only if bearing friction torque is equal to (or greater than, which is not, in itself, possible) conveyor belt torque, thus preventing the wheels from rotating and allowing the backward (linear) force of the conveyor belt, to be the predominant force on the airplane. This would require that the conveyor belt not push very hard, against the wheels.
It can be recognized, btw, that if such a conveyor belt support were spun, all of a sudden at high speed, the wheels would rotate and the airplane would remain almost still because of its inertia. This indicates that the conveyor belt cannot apply much of a backward force to the airplane; even if a great force is applied to the conveyor belt, accelerating it quickly, very little of that force is actually transmitted, by friction in the wheel bearings, to the airplane; the conveyor belt could - at best, and if acting alone on the airplane - accelerate it backward, only very slowly, thereby demonstrating only a small, backward force on the airplane.
Anyway, considering everything, there is a net forward force on the airplane, due to the engine's propulsive, forward force's being greater than the wheel bearings' frictional, backward force (and any air drag on the airplane). So, the airplane will accelerate forward, to takeoff speed.
P.S. - The speed of the conveyor belt wouldn't matter; as long as the wheels were rotating, the frictional force would be the same, regardless of the speed of rotation.
Last edited by David33, .
"Money laundering" is the common expression, with which I am familiar - meaning, to attempt to conceal the source of some (usually, large amount of) money, having presumably been obtained through some criminal transaction, by involving it in other, innocent transactions, so that its original, criminal source becomes difficult to recognize.
Anyway, it seems that you live in a remarkably dangerous neighborhood; I hope that you stay safe, and avoid becoming involved in criminal business, yourself.
I have no experience with Lamborghinis, so I have no knowledge of their start procedures.
Last edited by David33, .
I hope you will forgive me for jumping in, here, but I wish to suggest that it would be useful for your discussion, to agree upon a definition for your terms. "Free will" is a term that, in my experience, is not clearly defined.
A well-known philosophical riddle is: "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It seems to me that the answer to this question depends upon what is meant by "make a sound." If one means, "produce sound waves in the surrounding air" then we can expect that the answer is yes, assuming constant natural laws; if one means, "produce a hearing sensation," then the answer is no, since it has been stated, as part of the question, that no one hears the tree fall.
"Will" may perhaps be regarded as synonymous with "intent," and I suppose that it is likely that there can be agreement with the proposition that human beings can have intent, and act according to it. "Free" means "without constraint" and it may be presumed that "constraint" would include "necessity to act as an effect, resulting from a cause," so that "free" would mean "having no cause" or "undetermined." Alternatively, this may not be what is commonly understood as the meaning of the word "free" in the context of "free will;" it may instead be that "free" means "not having been caused by a thing or event that has been specified."
"Reason" assumes determination by logical implication (logic is a methodology designed for achieving accurate inference), and "science" tends to assume predictability (including, by comparitive probability), since its basic intent seems to be to understand phenomena and to be able to explain and predict their behavior. This makes the whole issue of "free will" perhaps insoluble by reason or science.
Anyway, I suggest that your debate is likely to be successful in reaching some reasonable, agreed-upon conclusion, only if you start with agreed-upon premises/definitions of terms.
As an aside, I will also suggest that one should be careful about using the words "science" or "scientific." Science is not characterized simply by the use of reasoning; it is defined by the Scientific Method, which necessarily includes the experimental confirmation of any hypothesis - reasonable, or not.
A well-known philosophical riddle is: "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It seems to me that the answer to this question depends upon what is meant by "make a sound." If one means, "produce sound waves in the surrounding air" then we can expect that the answer is yes, assuming constant natural laws; if one means, "produce a hearing sensation," then the answer is no, since it has been stated, as part of the question, that no one hears the tree fall.
"Will" may perhaps be regarded as synonymous with "intent," and I suppose that it is likely that there can be agreement with the proposition that human beings can have intent, and act according to it. "Free" means "without constraint" and it may be presumed that "constraint" would include "necessity to act as an effect, resulting from a cause," so that "free" would mean "having no cause" or "undetermined." Alternatively, this may not be what is commonly understood as the meaning of the word "free" in the context of "free will;" it may instead be that "free" means "not having been caused by a thing or event that has been specified."
"Reason" assumes determination by logical implication (logic is a methodology designed for achieving accurate inference), and "science" tends to assume predictability (including, by comparitive probability), since its basic intent seems to be to understand phenomena and to be able to explain and predict their behavior. This makes the whole issue of "free will" perhaps insoluble by reason or science.
Anyway, I suggest that your debate is likely to be successful in reaching some reasonable, agreed-upon conclusion, only if you start with agreed-upon premises/definitions of terms.
As an aside, I will also suggest that one should be careful about using the words "science" or "scientific." Science is not characterized simply by the use of reasoning; it is defined by the Scientific Method, which necessarily includes the experimental confirmation of any hypothesis - reasonable, or not.
The assertion that Pearl was a spy, may have no proof or reasoning, and be merely cynical, false propaganda. However, censoring "hate speech" is a bad idea, since who knows what will be called "hate speech," and your speech may be called that and censored, next.
Better simply to point out that there is no apparent evidence, or provide contrary evidence, and let their assertion be recognized as lacking credibility (or as being outright false), and as tending to imply perhaps a general lack of credibility, for those who assert it. Besides, this would be more effective for discrediting them - in this regard, and generally - than attempting to censor them and letting them assert that "the truth is being suppressed;" people might believe that (providing no less propagandistic advantage to them, than their current assertion), and since the subject could not be fairly considered, due to the censorship, therefore such an advantage to them, could not be rectified.
One reason that we respect "free speech" in America, is that it best facilitates the ultimate recognition of what is true, and provides the beneficial consequences, thereof.
Better simply to point out that there is no apparent evidence, or provide contrary evidence, and let their assertion be recognized as lacking credibility (or as being outright false), and as tending to imply perhaps a general lack of credibility, for those who assert it. Besides, this would be more effective for discrediting them - in this regard, and generally - than attempting to censor them and letting them assert that "the truth is being suppressed;" people might believe that (providing no less propagandistic advantage to them, than their current assertion), and since the subject could not be fairly considered, due to the censorship, therefore such an advantage to them, could not be rectified.
One reason that we respect "free speech" in America, is that it best facilitates the ultimate recognition of what is true, and provides the beneficial consequences, thereof.
Last edited by David33, .
Very impressive! Needs a canopy, though.
Interesting; thanks.
What would be the effect of overwriting with all 1's? Would the previous data be detectable, in that case?
I don't understand what you mean by "magnetic residue." It seems to me that, if the data are overwitten, then they're gone.
Last edited by David33, .
It IS true, fundamentally; water WILL tend to drain counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the southern hemisphere, but not necessarily in your toilet. The Coriolus effect does exist, and it does apply to water going down a drain, but in the case of a toilet (or other drains that you are likely to encounter), other circumstances have a much greater effect.
In other words, there IS a (very small) Coriolus effect in the draining behavior of your toilet, and your toilet may drain in a direction that seems to be explained by the Coriolus effect, but isn't - this being instead merely a coincidence; and it is perhaps equally likely that your toilet drains in a direction that is opposite to what would be expected from the Coriolus effect, since the Coriolus effect is of negligible magnitude in this situation. Again, quoting the Wikipedia article:
"When the water is being drawn towards the drain, the radius of its rotation around the drain decreases, so its rate of rotation increases from the low background level to a noticeable spin in order to conserve its angular momentum (the same effect as ice skaters bringing their arms in to cause them to spin faster). As shown by Ascher Shapiro in a 1961 educational video (Vorticity, Part 1), this effect can indeed reveal the influence of the Coriolis force on drain direction, but only under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. In a large, circular, symmetrical container (ideally over 1m in diameter and conical), still water (whose motion is so little that over the course of a day, displacements are small compared to the size of the container) escaping through a very small hole, will drain in a cyclonic fashion: counterclockwise in the Northern hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern hemisphere—the same direction as the Earth rotates with respect to the corresponding pole."
So, you should not expect that all toilets drain counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere; and you should not expect that, if you went south, you would find that all toilets drain in the opposite direction (although it would be slightly more efficient, I suppose, if toilets were constructed to behave in this way).
Last edited by David33, .
Actually, at the equator, the whole issue is so confusing to the water, that it refuses to drain at all. The result, of course, is massive flooding at the equator. Originally, all toilets were located at the equator, but they recognized how annoying all the flooding was and, since not being able to agree about which way the water should go down the drain, they simply moved away from the equator and went their separate ways. Thus became our modern world, with toilets in both northern and southern hemispheres.
It has seemed to me that a human population could increase very quickly, assuming maybe 20 children per couple (10 female, one offspring a year, starting at maybe 15y/o and continuing for about 20 years, in accordance with a modern expectation of life-expectancy at that time, notwithstanding the Biblical account that people lived to be very old), continuous after the first three couples' first children reached puberty and with no prohibition against interbreeding. I haven't tried to calculate it, rigorously. Multiple births and mortality from disease, violence and death of mother in childbirth, would affect the results. I would suppose that current rates of population increase, are empirical, only.
You deserve thanks for trying, anyway.
You deserve thanks for trying, anyway.
Last edited by David33, .
The question of whether there is "free will," continues to be debated by philosophers. A significant problem with the debate, is that it is difficult to define quite what is meant by the term "free will."
The nervous system (including the brain) is generally regarded as deterministic (although not necessarily predictable, of course). Its operating structures (neurons) are cells that are specialized for communication, and they simply either produce a communicating effect, or do not (all, or nothing). What causes a neuron to communicate ("fire," eventually ejecting a neurotransmitter chemical from the far-end of its axon fiber), is dependent upon whether it is stimulated or not. What stimulates it, is either a sensory neuron, which responds to some physical condition, or an interneuron in a network (a more complex, and thus intelligent, nervous system is basically characterized by a greater number of interneurons).
The brain consists of a very complicated network of inter-connected neurons. And whether a particular neuron, in the network, "fires," is the result of neurotransmitters binding to it, after having been produced by other neurons connected to it - some neurotransmitters stimulate it to fire, and others inhibit it from firing; the neuron "decides" whether to fire, as a result of evaluating the net effect of stimulus/inhibition acting upon it.
So, this is quite deterministic - assuming that the chemical reactions (and physical, sensory stimuli) that are involved, are deterministic. Since the development of quantum mechanics, this is a more complicated consideration. More to the point, such a description of how the brain operates, does not, in itself, explain consciousness and conscious will.
Neuroscientist John Eccles proposed, not very long ago, that the brain is sort of analogous to a radio receiver - being conscious because of being associated with some sort of transmitting, "spiritual" realm of consciousness, such as has been discussed, here. Others have proposed that consciousness is simply an "emergent property" of the brain, resulting from a sufficient level of complexity - which is to say that the whole is somehow more than merely the sum of its parts. Both explanations beg many other, unanswered questions.
WRT "free will," one philosophical proposal has been that it occurs in the "gray area" of quantum physical phenomena (which is only significant in the very small realm of atoms and their behavior). According to this proposed model, free will is some kind of conscious influence acting to affect the probabilities of particular atomic states; how this occurs, and why any particular choice if it represents "free will," is unanswered, as far as I know.
As a practical matter, free will tends to be regarded simply as an absence of direct, forcible coercion by another person, and an absence of a physical (or mental, although how this might be defined, can complicate the issue) defect that would result in an abnormal functioning of the brain (or mind). It is observable that persons seem typically to be capable of being taught to behave according to moral standards, and it is furthermore presumed that persons are typically capable of autonomously choosing such behaviors, or choosing otherwise. But the practical concern is that immoral behaviors must sometimes be defended against, so that the question is not essentially whether a criminal has, in a deeply philosophical sense, "free will," but instead, what should be done about the fact that he has behaved as a criminal (although one can suppose that the philosophical question is pursued for the sake of informing the answer of what should be done, in this and other circumstances).
As a side note - having now read a little ABOUT "Darwin's Cathedral" (but not the book, itself), it seems that the author's hypothesis is essentially that religion is an "evolutionarily" selective mechanism, whereby populations may enhance their survival by rewarding altruism, despite its seeming irrationality from the perspective of individual propagation of one's genome (the subject is more complicated, of course, and it seems to me that the author may be proposing a more expansive version of the idea of "kin selection," since population members are likely to be genetically related). Such a method of rewarding altruism, would be an alternative to violent coercion by a government or other entity (assuming, of course, that the religion is distinct from the government or other entity, which is often not the case).
Also discussed, in reviews of the book, is the idea that common religious beliefs can engender and maintain trust among community members, and alliance against other, perhaps competing, populations. This still only partially answers my questions about why a particular set of religious beliefs would gain popularity (among persons that would presumably have, already, a somewhat satisfactory - or at least societally useful - set of beliefs of their own), if the new beliefs are seemingly incredible, and becoming an adherent, is recognizably hazardous.
The nervous system (including the brain) is generally regarded as deterministic (although not necessarily predictable, of course). Its operating structures (neurons) are cells that are specialized for communication, and they simply either produce a communicating effect, or do not (all, or nothing). What causes a neuron to communicate ("fire," eventually ejecting a neurotransmitter chemical from the far-end of its axon fiber), is dependent upon whether it is stimulated or not. What stimulates it, is either a sensory neuron, which responds to some physical condition, or an interneuron in a network (a more complex, and thus intelligent, nervous system is basically characterized by a greater number of interneurons).
The brain consists of a very complicated network of inter-connected neurons. And whether a particular neuron, in the network, "fires," is the result of neurotransmitters binding to it, after having been produced by other neurons connected to it - some neurotransmitters stimulate it to fire, and others inhibit it from firing; the neuron "decides" whether to fire, as a result of evaluating the net effect of stimulus/inhibition acting upon it.
So, this is quite deterministic - assuming that the chemical reactions (and physical, sensory stimuli) that are involved, are deterministic. Since the development of quantum mechanics, this is a more complicated consideration. More to the point, such a description of how the brain operates, does not, in itself, explain consciousness and conscious will.
Neuroscientist John Eccles proposed, not very long ago, that the brain is sort of analogous to a radio receiver - being conscious because of being associated with some sort of transmitting, "spiritual" realm of consciousness, such as has been discussed, here. Others have proposed that consciousness is simply an "emergent property" of the brain, resulting from a sufficient level of complexity - which is to say that the whole is somehow more than merely the sum of its parts. Both explanations beg many other, unanswered questions.
WRT "free will," one philosophical proposal has been that it occurs in the "gray area" of quantum physical phenomena (which is only significant in the very small realm of atoms and their behavior). According to this proposed model, free will is some kind of conscious influence acting to affect the probabilities of particular atomic states; how this occurs, and why any particular choice if it represents "free will," is unanswered, as far as I know.
As a practical matter, free will tends to be regarded simply as an absence of direct, forcible coercion by another person, and an absence of a physical (or mental, although how this might be defined, can complicate the issue) defect that would result in an abnormal functioning of the brain (or mind). It is observable that persons seem typically to be capable of being taught to behave according to moral standards, and it is furthermore presumed that persons are typically capable of autonomously choosing such behaviors, or choosing otherwise. But the practical concern is that immoral behaviors must sometimes be defended against, so that the question is not essentially whether a criminal has, in a deeply philosophical sense, "free will," but instead, what should be done about the fact that he has behaved as a criminal (although one can suppose that the philosophical question is pursued for the sake of informing the answer of what should be done, in this and other circumstances).
As a side note - having now read a little ABOUT "Darwin's Cathedral" (but not the book, itself), it seems that the author's hypothesis is essentially that religion is an "evolutionarily" selective mechanism, whereby populations may enhance their survival by rewarding altruism, despite its seeming irrationality from the perspective of individual propagation of one's genome (the subject is more complicated, of course, and it seems to me that the author may be proposing a more expansive version of the idea of "kin selection," since population members are likely to be genetically related). Such a method of rewarding altruism, would be an alternative to violent coercion by a government or other entity (assuming, of course, that the religion is distinct from the government or other entity, which is often not the case).
Also discussed, in reviews of the book, is the idea that common religious beliefs can engender and maintain trust among community members, and alliance against other, perhaps competing, populations. This still only partially answers my questions about why a particular set of religious beliefs would gain popularity (among persons that would presumably have, already, a somewhat satisfactory - or at least societally useful - set of beliefs of their own), if the new beliefs are seemingly incredible, and becoming an adherent, is recognizably hazardous.
Last edited by David33, .
This still leaves the question of why any particular explanation - especially one that would seem to be incredible.
Well, not quite, I daresay. Reason has come to be regarded, in western culture, as more valuable than the pronouncements of "authorities." But Godel proved that no system of reasoning, can be internally sufficient; it always requires some presumed axioms as a basis from which one reasons; and reliance upon reason, therefore requires faith in those axioms.
Nope; it's what I could call reason to regard your statement as misleading, although possibly accurate in itself. That's why I posted the website as a response (and with no comment from myself).
I wanted also to paste the relevant paragraph, but since it's a flash, that seems to be not possible. Anyway, quoted from the website:
"Were Christians really thrown to the lions here [the Colosseum]? Well, there don't seem to be any sources that put it exactly that way. But sources do tell us that Roman criminals were killed by wild beasts here. Other ancient historians tell us of countless places in the Roman empire where Christians and Jews alike were executed for entertainment, because they were considered enemies of the state."
My interpretation of this, is that the website's author thinks that it is likely (for the reasons that he describes) that Christians were, indeed, thrown to the lions in the Colosseum, for causes that did not have "nothing to do with their religion" - notwithstanding the absence of direct, "irrefutable evidence." Other persons may have different confidence in that likelihood.
This is not a good analogy, since there are no similarities (except, I suppose, your having somehow involved "Jesus," in your question).
Last edited by David33, .
I thought you said you don't care.
Anyway, I do; I think that it's an interesting question; and it was not a rhetorical question.
I do note that many persons here are not merely unbelievers who don't care, but are so passionately anti-Christian that they jump at any chance to make their points, in that regard. Also, it seems to me that, before one becomes too eager to eliminate what many persons evidently regard as very valuable, it would be a good idea to know why they value it.
Thanks for the reference. I have not read the book, but I googled it to see if I could get the general idea, and I found some reviews that I'm reading, now. It's given me some things to think about.
These are similarly interesting questions. The earliest archeological findings show arguable evidence of religious beliefs (the one that particularly comes to mind, is careful burials of corpses along with artifacts that seem to include articles of value to the deceased, and representations of events pertaining to his life). The existence of religious beliefs seems to be a more complicated question than can be answered with an acknowledgement that there are uncertainties pertaining to life.
I have not asserted (and wouldn't even try to assert) that Christianity has not been spread by conquest and/or social coercion. However, that it HAS been spread by these methods, is not a basis for supposing that this is "everywhere" how it spread. Yours is, at best, an overstatement. And more to the point, it does not address the subject of my original question (although this does not, btw, constitute a statement that you are not permitted to say what you want about the subject). I posed the question, because it is interesting and because I wanted to understand something. In response, I have gotten a few comments, including yours, that are not really relevant to the question that I asked.
Last edited by David33, .
Also, btw, the Bible is reportedly the first publication to have been produced by a printing press. I don't recognize how this represents conquest or social coercion, either.
"Revisionism" is defined at dictionary.com as: "a departure from any authoritative or generally accepted doctrine, theory, practice, etc."
As far as I know, I have accurately described the basic, commonly acknowledged history of Christianity in the Roman Empire. So, I don't know why you have characterized it as "revisionism." You're the one who stated that "In fact, everywhere that Christianity spread (including the Goths starving and sacking Rome) it did either through conquest or social coersion" - which statement is evidently false.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG