Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Simple truths

It pains me to realize that many people seem so deluded as to believe obvious untruths.  It is undoubtedly so, however.  That being said, here is another short list of obvious truths that seem to escape of liberal/progressive/socialist, commie pinko enemies.

1.  There is no "rape culture" in America outside of Leftist enclaves like Hollyweird and Muslim majority communities.  In 2016, 95,730 rapes were reported in America, among a population of 323.1 million people.  That makes a rate of one in every 3,375 people raped, or 0.0296%.  The robbery rate that year was 102.8 per hundred thousand.  We don't talk about a "robbery culture", even though it is much more prevalent than rape.  And these statistics only include the rape of women.  It doesn't include the much larger number of rapes of incarcerated men.  We also notice that blacks and Latinos, who collectively comprise about one third of the population, perpetrate about half of all the rapes.  Please notice that the number of black women raped by white men has been unreportable for a decade - meaning the total number is less than ten per year.

2.  There is no institutional racism against blacks in America.  There is, of course, institutional racism against white men in favor of blacks.  We call it "affirmative action" and "preferential hiring" and "white privilege".  Blacks are disproportionately arrested for crimes because they disproportionately commit crimes.  Blacks are under represented in academia because blacks under perform academically.  Occam's razor says that blacks are dumb and violent, and therefore don't succeed.  Poverty doesn't cause crime, but crime does cause poverty.

3.  There is police brutality.  It is nowhere near the scale that the media makes it out to be.  There have always been bad cops.  There will always be bad cops.  It's the nature of people to be imperfect.  However, the fact that black thugs who try to kill cops get beaten or shot by those same cops is not a coincidence.  With very few exceptions (when the cop should be tried for murder or battery), if you want to survive an interaction with a police office, be calm, be polite, move slowly, keep your hands in view at all times, and do what the officer says.  Remember - a police officer is not a person, he's a loaded weapon.  Be nice and polite to the gun, and it won't bark at you.

4.  Black lives matter.  No they don't - not to blacks.  More than half of all the murders in America in 2016 were committed by blacks, largely against other blacks, who comprise 13% of the population.  And that's with a relatively large percentage of black males already incarcerated.  Fun fact - one in three black men have felony convictions.

5.  Only whites can be prejudiced.  This is obviously stupid.  The most racist, prejudiced people I've ever encountered in America are the blacks.  They're pretty blatant about it.  The knock out game is real, and ongoing.  If whites were really as prejudiced, bigoted, and violent as the media claims, then blacks would never dare to speak.  They'd be too beaten down and afraid for their jobs, homes, and lives.


Problems with dark matter

Warning:  Physics ahead.

Dark matter is postulated to solve the 'missing matter problem.'  That is the problem?  There's not enough observable matter in the universe to make the observed rotation of galaxies work.  You see, spiral galaxies spin as if they were pinwheels, with things furthest from the center moving fastest.  Or, if you prefer, as if the stars were dots painted onto a round sheet of plastic that was then spun about its center on a pin.

Stars shouldn't do that in real life.  All theories of gravity hold that stars in the center of a galaxy should move much more quickly than the stars half way out, which in turn rotate faster than the stars at the edge.  But this isn't what happens.  So, there must be a whole bunch of missing, invisible matter in a giant cloud around the galaxy, making the stars spin with the enormous total gravity.  Dark matter doesn't interact with regular matter at all except through gravity.  It may or may not react with itself in unknown ways, but we can't really know.

Except that this doesn't work.  Sure, it explains the problems, but it creates new ones.  If the dark matter is there, and it has gravity, should it be clumping together into larger and larger lumps?  Shouldn't there be dark matter stars and planets, acting darkly and suspiciously?  Shouldn't we see the effects of these clumps?  What happens when a dark black hole tears entire solar systems apart? 

We don't see any of that.  Apparently, dark matter also has some property that keeps it at the density of fog, never congealing or clumping at all.  Could dark matter have some sort of universal monopole property, where every particle is repelled by every other particle, even as they are attracted by gravity?  If the force were less than gravity, gravity would eventually overcome it, and dark foam would form, possibly like pumice.  If the repelling force is greater than the attraction of gravity, then we would expect the dark matter to be evenly spread everywhere, except where the extra attraction of normal matter might possibly gather together a slightly denser fog.  But this wouldn't be enough to count as the five-sixths of all matter that dark matter is supposed to be.

It's really quite simple.  If something is affected by gravity, then that something should form clumps.  Dark matter, as postulated, should forms clumps on a large scale, but not on a small scale.  No means for this distinction is postulated.  Alternately, dark matter objects do exist in profusion (5/6 of all matter, remember), but we have never seen their effects anywhere, because reasons.

What happens at the bottom?

Warning:  This is another physics post.

What happens inside a black hole?  According to standard theory, any particle falling into a black hole stops experiencing time at the event horizon, as it accelerates up to and then past the speed of light.  It's possible that particles experience negative or sideways time - the theories are inconclusive, and we can't have any experiential evidence for obvious reasons.  The particle then continues to accelerate, reaching infinite speed and infinite density at the central singularity.

According to my theory, the particle accelerates up to the speed of light - and then apparently stops accelerating.  There is no more source energy for the particle to gain speed, and the gravity gradient at the event horizon bends from a 90 degree vertical to a flat, zero degree horizontal at that point.  The particle would maintain its speed, and still wouldn't experience time, essentially acting like a normal photon.  The particle would zoom towards the center, eventually reaching and interacting with the particles already there.  Presumably, the forces that prevent particles from sharing states outside a black hole would still prevent them from sharing states inside of one, so at the center is not a singularity, but something like a Planck star.

Unless a negative energy state is possible.  Then things get more interesting, because the energy gradient wouldn't bottom out, and particles could accelerate past light speed to ludicrous speed (which is, naturally, plaid).  This speed isn't infinite, however, because the particles translate from our normal, real-number universe into the complex plane universe.  They would then accelerate out at relatively random speeds and energies into the i plane, while seeming to form a singularity in the R plane.

Which one of these conditions is true?  It's impossible to tell, really, without experimental verification.  To which I say, "It might be dangerous.  You go first."


Monday, December 25, 2017

6.5 PRC

So Hornady has unveiled their 6.5 PRC round.  Now, I'm all in favor of the 6.5mm caliber for precision shooting and hunting, not to mention military use (what's taking the Army so long to adopt the Grendel?), but this one makes me scratch my head.  It appears to be too long to fit in an AR-10, although the company website claims it will fit short and medium actions.  (Hornady - why no specifications?  Would it really kill you to give the cartridge dimensions?)  It takes a magnum bolt face.  It fires 143/147 grain rounds at 2950± fps from a 24" barrel, which is fairly impressive for that caliber in a non-magnum cartridge.  It's over 200 fps faster than the 6.5 Creedmoor, and that's no long range slouch.

However, this one seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  The 6.5 PRC essentially duplicates the .270 Winchester.  No one doubts the capabilities and popularity of the .270, so why reinvent the wheel?  I understand the Hornady is championing the 6.5mm caliber.  After all, the 6.5 Creedmoor is ridiculously popular, with excellent performance on the range.  It's also starting to catch on in the field.  But I really don't see the 6.5 PRC replacing the .270, or even lasting very long in its shadow.  Yes, it's superior to the Creedmoor, but with added recoil and throat wear that the bench rest competitors probably won't appreciate.  Having said that, it only drops 36" at 500 yards when zeroed at 200, and that's nothing to complain about.

As Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor says, "More power!"  However, sometimes, for some purposes, enough really is enough.



Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, y'all!

Linus knows what Christmas is all about.

Larry Correia - Christmas Noun X - The Ghosts of Die Hards Past

Monday, December 11, 2017

Give 6.5mm some love

The caliber and cartridge wars continue.  What all agree upon is that 5.56x45 is anemic and insufficient for the current combat environments.  This, of course, has been known for 15 years now, and yet our beloved Army has done nothing about the problem.  Oh, they have brought out of storage the M14s that they saved from Clinton's attempted purge, but those were made over 50 years ago.  Surely, there is something newer and better?  Let us ignore NATO commitments for this flight of fancy.  After all, it's not like NATO troops (other than some of the English speaking ones) are good for anything any more.

Serbia is in the process of rearming their special forces troops.  They're replacing the 5.45mm AKs with newly designed 6.5mm Grendel AKs.  These aren't your granddaddy's AKs, though.  These are high quality steel and polymer builds with close tolerances, with decent barrels, using the little cartridge that could.  Dust covers.  Thumb reachable selector levers.  Optics.  Rails.  These are high quality, modern weapons.  I highly approve.  Of, and of course, they have carbines, designated marksman rifles, and light machine guns.  They appear to be using 108 grain bullets for the carbines, and 123 grain bullets for the rifles and LMGs.  This makes a great deal of sense - it lightens the average rifleman's load a bit, and roughly equalizes the trajectories of the bullets from the different barrel lengths.

6.5mm bullets are not superior, but not by magic.  They are superior because humans are firing them from human portable weapons.  6.5mm is the sweet spot for recoil versus bullet shape and weight.  That means that 6.5mm bullets have relatively low recoil for a relatively high ballistic coefficient, yet still wide enough to be deadly to human sized targets.  Don't misunderstand - .22 caliber bullets kill people - eventually.  The target will bleed out over the next several hours without prompt medical treatment.  (The US Army recommends shooting a target at least 5 times, at short range, to stop them with a .223.  Not kill, stop.  There's a difference.)  But .223s don't cause shock outside of a very short range, especially with full metal jacketed military bullets.  It takes a thicker, wider, heavier bullet to cause a large temporary wound cavity in the target.  This is what pulps organs and ruptures blood vessels that aren't in the direct bath of the projectile.  And that, my friends, is what causes an immediate cessation of hostilities by the target.

So, if we have a goal of using 6.5mm bullets, what cartridge should we use?  The Grendel is an obvious choice, and probably the correct one for individual weapons.  It has long legs, but not so much recoil as to make it unmanageable in close quarters.  We could argue about using an AK or AR platform, but we Americans like our ARs, and there's no reason not to use a modified AR as the base platform.  There's even a belt fed variant, that's a bit lighter than the m249 SAW.

What, then, shall we use for heavier weapons?  The 7.62x51 is tried and true, if not optimal.  Switching to a 6.5mm Creedmoor would be beneficial, but not dramatically so.  Given that the 6.5 Grendal rounds have excellent performance at long ranges, combined with better than average penetration qualities, I think we could dispence with the 7.62mm NATO round all together, except perhaps for miniguns.  Instead, for crew served, mounted weapons, we could use something heavier.  After all, engagements at long range are relatively common now, and many adversaries wear body armor capable of defeating the .308 cartridge.  The 7mm magnum is a fairly obvious choice, if we want to stay with a smaller caliber.  The 7mm Nosler would have even longer legs.  However, let us broaden our horizons.

In a crew served weapon, especially when mounted, recoil is not the primary objection.  If it were, we would never use the venerable .50 BMG.  So, we could invision a weapon using a cartridge of between .264 (6.5mm) and .338 (8.6mm) caliber.  Since we intend for this cartridge to engage targets at long ranges and defeat modern body armor, the larger calibers would probably be better.  So, we automatically go to the upper limit of .338, in either a Lapua or Nosler cartridge.  These would give a medium machine gun long legs, without being quite as heavy as an m2a1 BMG.  Size and weight of weapon and ammunition are still important considerations, of course.  What other cartridges could fill the role?  Most of the .30 caliber magnum cartridges would serve nearly as well.  What we're really looking for is something that delivers over 3500 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, with a high ballistic coefficient bullet travelling at over 2800 feet per second.  What are your thoughts?

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Gutless lying weasels

I like physics, as you may have noticed.  I watch several different U-tub channels, one of which is MinutePhysics.  Today, they released a new video - "Are university admissions biased?  Simpson's paradox part 2."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ME4P9fQbo

The comments on this video are closed.  I wonder why?  All their other videos seem to allow comments.

Could it be that this is a political video, where the conclusions drawn directly refute the evidence shown?  The statistical evidence shows that there is no bias against women in university admissions, and in fact a slight bias towards.  This doesn't mean there is no biad against women, according to the video.  Oh, no, that would be too simple.  It simply means that the bias arises earlier in the educational process, perhaps even in grammar school, or even in society itself.

The video then proceeds to tirelessly repeat known lies about women getting paid less than men for equivalent jobs (hint - untrue), etc, etc, ad nauseum ad feministum.

Facts presented - no bias/slight bias in favor of women.  Conclusion - bias against women!  Patriarchy!  Are we clear?  The producers of Minute Physics are thus shown to be gutless lying weasels.  I can no longer trust the informational content of their videos, as they have proven themselves to place ham handed politics above sound mathematics and science.

Please note that the video makers had to go all the way back to the 1970s to find statistics close enough to even to even make this topic mildly interesting.  A study done in Berkeley, of course.  For those not keeping track, universities today run about 2 to 1 against men.  Good for dating, bad for education.

Feminism is cancer.  Progressivism is cancer.  Leftism is cancer.  They are fatal to society and individuals.  We understand the vector, we can test for the carriers with great certitude.  Why do we not rid ourselves of these plagues?  At the very least, all children must be thoroughly inocculated against these dreadful maladies, these truly social diseases.