Adonis Diaries

Author Archive

Hydrophilia? Losing two Oxygen atoms (by mass) in the water molecule.

Hypersigmanometry? M-sigma relationship? caraboba cycle? Beaucalus?

How all the above terms describe the creation of life?

Note: Just increasing the dose of complexity? Never mind, it could be fun, in the long term.

Predicting the Nuclear Strong Force: Hydrophilia 𝜑

Alexander Tungcuu Le

Feb 24, 2022

This article was originally published on ResearchGate.

Further explanation in my future new book, The Singularity of Electromagnetics — Early Fundamentals of Beaucalus.

I’ve published about it on ResearchGate (here), and I’m using this Medium article to explain the concept of hydrophilia force and other –philic chemical affinities.

Let’s first think of hydrophilia that means

“we subtract mass from the force (hydrophilia constant) of the △ of 777 moles of H2O (6998.78088) divided by the △_{h2o} (16.12603206), all of that divided by the root-division of △_{h2o} from ◯_{c² joule}, equals 38.56324325 Newtons.”

Follow the Hypersigmanometry below.

Last Line: Hydrophilia

Our hydrophilic force is 38.56324325 Newtons.

We postulate that losing two Oxygen atoms (by mass) results in the hydrophilia, and when we try to describe what hydrophilia means, we can form Calculus symbols, as following:

M-Sigma Proof of Hydrophilia

The proof above suggest that hydrophilia is an m-sigma relationship. Wikipedia says (about m-sigma),

“The M–sigma (or Mσrelation is an empirical correlation between the stellar velocity dispersion σ of a galaxy bulge and the mass M of the supermassive black hole at its center.

The Mσ relation was first presented in 1999 during a conference at the Institut d’astrophysique de Paris in France.

The proposed form of the relation, which was called the ‘Faber–Jackson law for black holes’”

The m-sigma relationship to velocity dispersion agrees with my other theory about relative space, and no time or time as a constant.

The m-sigma relationship in that race to ‘X’ [from the last linked article] shows a dispersion in velocity.

But further interpretation says that the hydrophilia, as derived by subtracting m from F (in F=ma), forms hydrophilia as a deceleration subtraction.

This is all in the case of hydrophilic forces 𝜑.

At our current period, we form atomic based upon the Carbon atom; for instance, if we lose our hydrophilia (from 2 Oxygens reducing), losing water, we’d transmute into Boron (as below).

Reduction into Boron with Loss of Hydrophilia (2O)

We can also investigate into the formation of our mitochondrial DNA, as below:

Reduction of Hydrogen Mass into Mitochondrial DNA from Duplicating Hydrophilia

From here, we get a good frequency number, 12.1225465; where the 12 whole units may be represented by one Carbon atom, and the remainder of 0.1225465 may be represented as a distributed frequency of Hydrogenic atomics, or in helio-tomics, [12.1225465] / [3•1.00794] = 4.009017236 He [amu].

As when taking 0.1225465 and dividing it by 1.00794, it stays 0.12 for a caraboba cycle (three-turns/division-cycles) so that magnifying it by one resolute octave, we form a whole other Carbon atom, otherwise described to as the creation of life.

In any case, the above Calculus should be a good formula for the formation of our cellular work-engine, the mitochondria.

That is, it should be described as a process which births mitochondrial DNA from two slightly differentiated dipolar clocks of water molecules, drying up, oxidizing — losing one hydrogen atom; and this, is the formula for the birth of our mitochondrial genes.

Of course, it is best that I am thorough with the understanding of hydrogenics, and the formulae, that I hope to move forth in-with this writing; that is, we should also be interpreting the hydrophilia of two Carbon atoms fusing molecular structures.

That follows by, taking the hydrophilic constant, then subtracting two Carbon atoms (as similar to what we performed with Oxygen, earlier), which equals: 14.54124325 — giving us the hydrophilia of (2C:H1872629/1000) of two Carbon atoms.

With this hydrophilia of 2C:H1872629/1000 (14.54124325), let’s mathematically simulate how that hydrophilia forms mitochondrial DNA (C1H6) [with the following Calculus below].

Hydrophilia Division
Percentage of Success: 99.32590396%

We get a 99.32590396% scientific significance for our hydrophilia force calculations.

But with better clarity, we start by taking the hydrophilic 2C:H1872629/1000 hydrophilia of 14.54124325 and divide it by 6 hydrogen atoms [from C1H6], run that process of division through the magnitude of our Dewey decimal number scale, then find Carbon-affinity (carbophilia) by denominating the result from the [14.54124325 • 10] / [6 • 1.00794] by 12.011, giving us a: 2 α-particles 1872629 milli-β particles, a hydrocarbon-affinity of: C2H0.001872629.

The last bit of exponential Calculus is how we determined our scientific significance for our hydrophilia 𝜑 force calculations.

Furthering the Beaucalus discoveries of hydrophilia 𝜑 with natural nitrogen, forming ammonia and o-zone pollution, we can use the below Beaucalus to predict annihilations of anti-Oxygen and Oxygen atoms — synchronized fusions, as part of a hydrophilic 2N:6H hydrophila, where the remaining hydrophilia may form an 6-sided atom, as in Carbon, and form frequency wavelengths of carbo-philia — in the suspension/separation of natural nitrogen from three natural hydrogen atoms, undoing ammonia;

we may form.

Hydrophilia with Nitrogen Divide Oxygen

May we extend our hydrophilia 𝜑 force model to more complex chemical compositions like insulin (C257H383N65O77S6)? We can try. Let’s start by trying to figure out what sort of hydrophilia the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atoms in the chemical formula for insulin possesses (below):

Determining the Hydrophilic 𝜑 Force

Then, let’s multiply our F𝜑H383O77+ hydrophilia force with each of the remaining atomic arrangements (in insulin): C257, N65, and S6, as below.

Root-Division of Sulfur Reduction From Hydrophilia Upon Carbon Absorption of Nitrogen

The last line is a contrasting square root operation of the sulfuric 6S:H4+ hydrophilia (in insulin) [-182.2760322] after 3076.629932 angles of division, starting with Carbon absorption, and denominating that Carbon absorption by 900.3181322 angles of nitrogen division(s).

The result suggests a good approximation for hydrophilia in insulin (since it is close to 1.0).

So What is Hydrophilia and Hydrophilic Forces?

My hypothesis is that it explains subatomic nuclear forces.

As hydrophilia refers to a particle’s dependence upon water; and hydrophilic 𝜑 forces are what carries the hydrophilia through energy conversion by General Relativity — that is, that the curvature of the space fabric, leads to a force being formed — carried by water.

If you liked this article, please hit the ‘Applause’ button belowOr, alternatively, hit subscribe to get the latest articles from me, or perhaps, you’d like to leave a comment — which I promise to try my best to reply.

Youth is irreversible.

If you hope,

If your kind of Faith says that most everything, save youth,

With a little good health, is reversible…

You have No reason

Not to daydream of a better tomorrow.

Go ahead

And raise vigorous and healthy children

Note: A fitting title could be “Faked Optimism

Ten theorems formulated in basic-math terms proved after decades, centuries, or millennia

Catalin Barboianu, PhD

Dec 15, 2021

Mathematics lovers say that the shorter the text of a problem or theorem and the longer its solution or proof, the more beautiful is that problem or theorem.

Philosophers and historians of mathematics say that the longer a theorem stays unproved (as a conjecture), the more important it becomes for the development of mathematics and for the inquiry into the nature and foundation of mathematics.

The history of mathematics proves that they were right in this respect.

Struggling to solve the conjectures for decades and even for centuries or millennia since their statement, mathematicians were urged to link existing mathematical theories of different natures, structures, and languages, and even to create new theories of a higher complexity than that within which the conjecture was stated.

With the addition of new links, structures, conceptual frameworks, and content, they contributed to the increase in applicability of mathematics within itself and also in the sciences.

In the current list, we have 10 conjectures that were stated in terms of basic mathematics — that is, within basic algebra, number theory, Euclidian geometry, and elementary geometrical topology — which awaited their proof for more than two decades.

10. The Abel-Ruffini theorem (25 years to prove)

Niels Henrik Abel (1802–1829)

Also known as Abel’s impossibility theorem, it states that there is no general algebraic solution (that is, solution in radicals) to the general polynomial equations of degree 5 or higher.

The conjecture originates in 1799 in the work of C. F. Gauss, and the first attempt to solve it belongs to Paolo Ruffini in the same year.

However, Ruffini’s solution was not convincing for the great mathematicians of the period (including A. L. Cauchy), because of an incompleteness regarding the definitions of the radicals used.

N. H. Abel is credited as the solver of the conjecture in 1824.

The proof was based on some results of the Galois theory; however this theory was not yet crystallized at the time of that proof.

A few years after that, with the co-authorship of J. Liouville, the theory of Galois was published and recognized as bringing great discoveries in the theory of equations.

In 1963, V. Arnold provided a topological proof of the Abel-Ruffini theorem which established the basis of the Topological Galois Theory.

9. Hilbert’s 17th problem (27 years to prove)

David Hilbert

Hilbert asked within his famous list of capital problems of mathematics in 1900: Given a multivariable polynomial that takes only non-negative values over the reals, can that polynomial be represented as a sum of squares of rational functions?

The problem originated in the defense of the doctoral thesis of H. Minkowski in 1885, who expressed the opinion that there exist real polynomials which are nonnegative on the whole R^n and cannot be written as finite sums of squares of real polynomials.

Hilbert solved the particular case of n = 2 in 1893, and the general problem was solved in the affirmative by E. Artin in 1927, using the Artin-Schreier theory of ordered fields, with applications in algebraic group theory and model theory.

8. Hilbert’s 7th problem (34 years to prove)

Hilbert asked the following equivalent questions within the same list from 1900:

a) In an isosceles triangle, if the ratio of the base angle to the angle at the vertex is algebraic and irrational, then is the ratio between base and side always transcendental (that is, it cannot be the solution of any algebraic equation)?

b) Is a^b always transcendental for algebraic a not being 0 or 1, and irrational algebraic b? The problem was solved independently by A. O. Gelfond and T. Schneider in 1934 using similar methods, and the result of their work was the Gelfond-Schneider theorem, with a wide range of applications in transcendental number theory, linear algebra, and model theory.

Precursors brought important contributions to the solution, such as J. Fourrier’s for the irrationality of e in 1815, C. Hermite’s proof for the transcendence of e in 1873, and C. L. F. Lindemann’s proof for the transcendence of π in 1882.

7. Fermat’s little theorem (43 years to prove)

Pierre de Fermat

Stated first by P. de Fermat in 1640 in a letter to a friend of his, the conjecture says that if p is prime, then for any integer a, integer a^p — a is a multiple of p.

Several proofs were given to this theorem over time, either in combinatorial, multinomial, dynamical systems, modular arithmetic, or group theory terms.

L. Euler first published a proof in 1736 (with modular arithmetic), however Leibniz had actually left the same proof in an unpublished manuscript before 1683.

The theorem is a fundamental result of number theory and stands as an important primality test.

An immediate generalization of this theorem is Euler’s theorem in number theory. The most relevant theoretical application of this theorem was in group theory; as for practical applications, one is in cryptography.

6. Poincaré conjecture (98 years to prove)

Henri Poincaré

In topology, Poincaré’s conjecture is a statement characterizing the 3-sphere (the hypersphere bounding the unit ball in four-dimensional space), saying that every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.

In other words, for a space that locally looks like three-dimensional space but is connected, finite in size, and lacks any boundary, if such a space has the property that each loop in the space can be continuously tightened to a point, then it is necessarily a three-dimensional sphere.

H. Poincaré stated this conjecture in 1904, and in 2000 it was named one of the Millennium Prize Problems.

In the 1950s and 1960s, other mathematicians attempted proofs of the conjecture.

In 1958, R. H. Bing proved a weak version of the Poincaré conjecture: if every simple closed curve of a compact 3-manifold is contained in a 3-ball, then the manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.

Russian mathematician G. Pelerman offered a complete solution based on R. Hamilton’s theory of Ricci flow and made use of results on spaces of metrics due to Cheeger, Gromov, and Perelman himself.

The solution was presented in three preprints posted online between 2002 and 2003, and was reviewed and confirmed in 2006.

Pelerman was awarded the Fields Medal for his work.

Poincaré’s conjecture belongs to the early history of algebraic topology.

Generalizations of the conjecture to higher dimensions (already proved) links to the concept of deformation in Riemannian geometry, with implications and applications for gravitation and cosmology.

5. The four-color theorem (124 years to prove)

The theorem states that 4 colors suffice to color any map such that two adjacent regions will not share the same color.

The conjecture was suggested in 1852 by Frederik Guthrie to his professor, mathematician Augustus De Morgan, who made it public and contributed to its solution.

Other famous contributors were W. R. Hamilton, A. Cayley, A. Kempe, P. G. Tait, and J. Koch.

In a second stage, mathematicians focused on finding techniques to reduce the complicated maps to a set of classifiable cases that could be tested.

Initially, the set was thought to contain nearly 9,000 members, and so the mathematicians appealed to computer techniques to write algorithms that could do the testing for them.

In 1976, Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken reduced the testing problem to a set with 1,936 configurations, and a complete solution to the four-color Conjecture was achieved with the help of the computer.

The theorem was proved within graph theory, with the crucial help of Euler’s formula; however, projective geometry, knot theory, topology, and combinatorics were appealed over time to contribute to the proof.

4. Catalan’s conjecture (158 years to prove)

Mathematician E. C. Catalan conjectured in 1844 that 8 and 9 are the only consecutive powers (3² — 2³ = 1); or in other words, this is the only non-trivial solution of the equation x^p — y^q = ±1.

More than 500 years before Catalan’s formulation, Levi ben Gerson had found that the only powers of 2 and 3 differing by 1 were 8 and 9.

Hyyrő and Makowski proved that No three consecutive powers exist.

R. Tijdeman showed in 1976 that there can be only a finite number of exceptions should the conjecture not hold.

In 1999, M. Mignotte showed that if a nontrivial solution exists, then p < 7.15 x 10¹¹ and q < 7.78 x 10¹⁶. Romanian mathematician P. Mihăilescu solved the conjecture in 2002 in a manuscript sent to several mathematicians and published in 2004.

The solution makes use of the theory of cyclotomic fields and Galois modules. A generalization of Catalan’s conjecture applies in complex number theory. Other applications are in Galois theory of groups.

3. Fermat’s Last Theorem (358 years to prove)

The conjecture stated by P. de Fermat in 1637 says that there are No positive integers ab, and c such that a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer n greater than 2.

One of the most notable theorems in the history of mathematics, it can be formulated equivalently in various ways, either within number theory or theory of elliptic curves.

Fermat proved the conjecture just for the particular case of n = 4; however, this yielded an important reduction, that of being sufficient to prove the conjecture for exponents n that are prime numbers.

Then, mathematicians struggled for over 350 years to find a proof, and dozens of them made advances. Over the next two centuries following Fermat’s partial proof, the conjecture was proved for only the primes 3, 5, and 7.

In the middle of the 19th century, E. Kummer proved it for all regular primes. The final proof was offered in 1995 by A. Wiles, who replaced elliptic curves with Galois representations.

The proof brought him the Abel prize in 2016 and other awards. During the search for the solution, a link was discovered between the elliptic curves and modular forms, two completely different fields of mathematics.

The problem and its solution contributed to the development of algebraic number theory and the proof of modularity theorem.

2. Kepler conjecture (403 years to prove)

Johannes Kepler

Stated in 1611 by astronomer Johannes Kepler, the conjecture concerns sphere packing in 3-dimensional space: It says that No arrangement of equally sized spheres filling a space has a greater average density than that of the cubic close packing and hexagonal close packing arrangements.

F. Gauss showed in 1831 that the conjecture is true if the spheres are arranged in a regular lattice.

In 1900, D. Hilbert included the conjecture in his famous list of 23 unsolved problems of mathematics.

In 1953, F. Tóth showed that the problem of determining the maximum density of all arrangements could be reduced to a finite number of calculations. This meant that a proof by exhaustion was possible with the help of a fast enough computer.

Following this idea, T. Hales applied linear programming methods to a function on over 5,000 configurations of the spheres and announced in 1998 that his proof was complete.

The proof also relies extensively on methods from the theory of global optimization and interval arithmetic. This wasn’t enough for Hales.

In 2014, together with 21 collaborators, he completed his project to find a formal proof for the Kepler conjecture, which can be verified by automated proof checking software.

Although it looks like a problem in recreational mathematics, Kepler’s conjecture has relevant links to other geometrical-topology problems that are involved in various optimization models (including the hexagonal tiling of plane and space).

  1. The honeycomb conjecture (2,035 years to prove)

By far claiming the longest waiting period for a proof, this conjecture has both practically applicative and philosophical implications.

It says that the regular hexagonal grid is the best way to divide a surface into regions of equal area with the least total perimeter.

It can be also stated in terms of finite graphs with smooth curves in bi-dimensional space. The origin of this problem is obscure; it is mentioned in a text of Marcus Terentius Varro around 36 B.C.; however, it is hypothesized that Zenodorus’s much earlier work Isometric Figures (about 180 B.C.) might have mentioned it.

The proof was provided in 1999 by the same T. Hales. The key lemma of the proof is an “isoperimetric” estimate for perimeter in terms of area and the proof is based on a reduction to finite clusters.

The theorem and generalizations thereof have immediate applications in optimizing space, physical structures, and material waste, for instance in construction.

Generalized for the 3-dimensional space to describe the shape of bees’ honeycomb, the theorem became a subject of debate in the philosophy of science.

Since in physical terms, it reverts to the evolutionary fact that with the hexagonal shape. the bees consume the least amount of wax for a given honeycomb, philosophers of science asked several questions regarding the nature of the explanation of that fact: is this a genuine mathematical explanation, a biological explanation, or a combination of both?

Do bees (and animals in general) have a perceptual mathematical knowledge provided by evolution that complies with formal mathematics?

How is it that bees “know” the truth of the conjecture and humans had to wait over two millennia to prove it?

Dr. Catalin Barboianu is the author of the book What is Mathematics: School Guide to Conceptual Understanding of Mathematics.

UPDATED 15 MAY, 2022


Not Just a Pretty Face: Cleopatra Was a Genius Who Spoke 8 Languages

Cleopatra VII (69 – 30 BC) was Queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt and its last active ruler. (The Seleucid empire ruled over all of Turkey and Syria and fell to the Roman general Pompei)

Most famous for her love affairs with Mark Antony and Julius Caesar, Roman propaganda was quick to paint Cleopatra as little more than a seductress who forged her position in the beds of powerful men.

Cleopatra was a powerful and accomplished ruler, but historical accounts discredited her, minimized her successes and vastly exaggerated her indiscretions.

The common view of Cleopatra presented in ancient Roman text and popularized in modern media is one of a temptress who used her sexual talents to gain political advantage. (The Roman empire disfigured/fake news of those who confronted its occupation. For example, No records of Hani Bal 12 years stay in Italy)

What these ancient accounts fail to mention is that she was, in fact, one of the greatest intellectuals of her time .

She was educated by the leading scholars of the Hellenistic world and studied at the Mouseion in Alexandria, which included the famous Library of Alexandria. 

There she studied geography, history, astronomy, philosophy, international diplomacy, mathematics, alchemy, medicine, zoology, and economics.

Cleopatra and Caesar (1866), a painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme (Public domain)

Cleopatra and Caesar (1866), a painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme (Public domain)

Cleopatra was the only member of her dynasty to speak ancient Egyptian and read hieroglyphs.

Apart from this, she knew ancient Greek and the languages of the Parthians, Jews, Medes, Trogodyatae, Syrians, Ethiopians and Arabs

It is known that Cleopatra VII spent a lot of time in a type of ancient laboratory.

She wrote several works related to herbs and cosmetology.

Unfortunately, all the books by her were lost in the fire of 391 AD, when the great Library of Alexandria was destroyed.

Famous physician Galen studied her works and was able to rewrite a few recipes created by her.

One of the medicines which he also suggested to his patients was a special cream, which helped men to gain back their hair.

Her impact on the sciences and medicine was well known even during the first centuries of Christianity.

In a world full of powerful people that were out to see her dead, Cleopatra was able to outsmart them all.

After the death of Cleopatra, Egypt became a province of the Roman Empire, marking the end of the second to last Hellenistic state and the age that had lasted since the reign of Alexander.

Read more: The Wisdom of Cleopatra, the Intellectual Queen Who Could Outsmart Them All

Top image: Cleopatra. Source: Lumixera / Adobe Stock

By Joanna Gillan

Kieran D. Kelly

Feb 23, 2022

A Simple Explanation for Energy…

Einstein published a paper that asked the question “Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?”

The received message was “Mass is also a form of Energy”;

All energy is inertia. And all “work” is simply “a transfer of inertia”.

The quantity of inertial mass “GENERATED” is determined by the speed of spatial oscillation.

A few explanatory equations in this valuable article:

c = (ωₘₐₓ)(rₘᵢₙ). (r-min) being the minimum “radius of twist”)

u = (ω)(rₘᵢₙ)

the speed of light (c) equates to the maximum linear speed of angular oscillation.

E-max is the maximum allowable energy containable in an elementary spatial oscillation.

E = (mₘₐₓ u c) or E = (mₘₐₓ u uₘₐₓ)

(c)² = (uᵣₑₗ)² + (vᵣₑₗ (rel. means relative to observer. V is linear speed)

(uᵣₑₗ/c) = SQRT (1 – (vᵣₑₗ/c)²)= 1/γ

TIME is not really a thing in itself, NOR is it a “fourth” dimension. TIME is but an emergent property of oscillating 3D-Space.

(Δvₘₐₓ)² = (c)² – (u. (Maximum change in velocity (delta-v-max). Knowing that “change in velocity” is absolute and Not relative as velocity to the observer)

½mv² = (Δm c c)

This equation says that an absolute change in Kinetic Energy equates to an absolute change in Mass

What is Energy?

I have always found the scientific definition of energy highly unsatisfactory.

The scientific definition of energy states that “Energy is the Ability to do Work”. So what is Work then?

Well, the scientific definition of work states that “Work is a measure of Energy Transfer”.

So A is defined by B, and B is defined by A. That’s clearly not very useful, but we will come back to this later.

It is safe to say that everyone has a “feel” of what “Energy” is: it is just hard to put your finger on it.

Amplitude and Frequency

We know that energy often travels in waves (of particles?). Water waves and sound waves are common examples of this.

Waves are simply a series of oscillations. The amplitude of any oscillation is simply the maximum displacement of an event from its equilibrium position. In general the amplitude of the wave, tells us how much energy is in a wave.

In the case of water waves, higher amplitude means taller waves. And, in the case of sound waves, higher amplitude means louder sound.

Amplitude, however, is not the only factor that determines the amount of energy transfer in a wave.

The “Frequency” of a wave tells us how many amplitudes are transferred per second.

And so taken together we can say that the amount of energy in material waves is a product (Not necessarily a product, but two factors entering into the equation) of the intensity of the waves (as given by the amplitude), times, the number of waves per second (as given by the frequency).

In 1802, Thomas Young suggested that the energy in “Light” also travels in waves.

And , in 1865 James Clerk Maxwell’s work on electromagnetism not only seemed to confirm this idea, but further suggested that these waves are in fact, “Electromagnetic” waves.

Electromagnetic waves are considered part of classical physics. The classical relationship between amplitude and intensity is therefore said to extend to light; and so in the case of light waves, higher amplitude means brighter light.

However, unlike all other waves in classical physics, the rate of energy transfer is said to be independent of the frequency, and consequently the energy in a beam of light is said to be determined solely by the amplitude, or the “brightness”, of the light.

This belief in the independence of intensity from frequency ultimately led to some considerable confusion when, in December 1900, Max Planck made a mathematical discovery that seemed to imply that the amplitude of light was, in fact, “Quantized” by frequency — meaning that the amplitude of light, could ONLY rise and fall in increments of a minimum value of energy, defined by the frequency itself.

This “quantization of energy” was a significant break with classical physics, and would ultimately lead to the strange new world of “Quantum” physics.

I am suggesting that this drastic break with classical physics was somewhat misguided.

In my work, I am suggesting that the concept of “energy quantization” was a misinterpretation of the underlying physics of light.

I suggest that a more likely explanation is that: what is normal for classical material waves is simply reversed for classical EM waves.

I am suggesting that while the energy in material waves is defined by the intensity per wave (as given by the amplitude), times, the number of waves per second (as given by their frequency); the energy in EM waves , by contrast, is defined by the intensity per photon (as given by the frequency), times, the number of photons at a given moment in time — and the size of this “group of photons” is what is being measured as the “amplitude” of the EM wave.

This idea could be summarized in a fashion below:

  • Sound Wave Energy (E) ∝ Intensity per wave (i.e. amplitude/loudness) x Number of waves per second (i.e. frequency).
  • Light EM Energy(E) ∝ Intensity per photon (i.e. frequency) x Number of instantaneous photons (i.e. amplitude/brightness).

This reimagining of the nature of light leads to some very interesting results.

First — A Quick Recap

In the previous post “The Amplitude IS the Frequency” I addressed the idea that EM Waves, and the Speed of Light, might in some way be related to the “Rate of Change of CURL (circulating field)”…

In his work on classical electrodynamics, James Clerk Maxwell had introduced the concept of “Curl” to explain “Circulating” electric and magnetic fields.

Maxwell defined curl as “a circulation, per unit area, over an infinitesimal path, around a point in space”.

In the previous post, we asked the question what if there is no such thing as a “zero-dimensional point” in space? What if space is actually “quantized” into tiny “ Infinitesimal Volumes”?

If this were to be the case then the concept of curl would have to relate NOT to a zero-dimensional point in Space, but to an infinitesimal three-dimensional “Element of Space”.

And, in this scenario Maxwell’s description of curl as being a “Circulation per Unit Area”, would equate to the concept of “Twisting the Cross-Sectional-Area” of an infinitesimal-volume about its remaining third dimension.

And THAT possibility led to a very important consequence, because twisting any cross-sectional area of a cube comes up against a physical restriction, in the form of: a maximum amount of twist.

It is impossible to twist a 2D square more than 90 degrees; and we used this simple geometric fact to reason that if there exists a maximum quantity of twist (θₘₐₓ = π/2 radians), then there must also exist a minimum turning circle, with a minimum “radius of twist” (r-min).

And if there exists a (r-min) then, thanks to the fixed speed of light (c), there must also exist a maximum angular frequency (ω-max).

From these simple foundational steps, we were able to render an alternative version of the famous Planck-Einstein Relation (E=hf)—which in the previous paper was given by

Equation (1.9) _________ E = (hfₘₐₓ)(θ/θₘₐₓ)

(Two limiting factors: fₘₐₓ and θₘₐₓ)

This equation is saying that the amount of energy in an oscillating quantum volume is a function of its frequency, which itself is a function of the angular amplitude of displacement and oscillation, theta.

We will use this equation as the starting point for the following work…

Speed of Oscillation

Equation (2.1) ________ E = (hfₘₐₓ)(θ/θₘₐₓ)

In this equation (f-max) is the maximum frequency of oscillation, and its value is 2.9521 x 10⁴² Cycles per Second.

This equation can also be written in its alternative form as

Equation (2.2) ________ E = (ħωₘₐₓ)(θ/θₘₐₓ)

In this equation, the Planck Constant (h) has been replaced by the “Reduced Planck Constant” (h-bar) which has a value of (h/2π), and (ω-max) is the maximum “angular” frequency of oscillation, and its value is 1.8549 x 10⁴³ Radians per Second.

Using the equality (θ/θₘₐₓ) equals (ω/ωₘₐₓ), from the equation (1.6), we can convert equation (2.2) to

Equation (2.3) ________ E = (ħωₘₐₓ)(ω/ωₘₐₓ)

Since (ω-max) is a constant, what we have here, in equation (2.3), is one of the traditional forms of the Planck Einstein Relation that says that the energy in a photon of light is determined by its angular frequency (ω).

Now, one of the earliest developments in the science of physics was Galileo’s insight that “angular frequency” is, in fact, the same thing as “angular SPEED”.

And so if we multiply (r-min) by an angular frequency we will get a linear speed.

We have already seen that the product of the constants omega-max and (r-min) gives us the speed of light (c).

Equation (1.4) _________ c = (ωₘₐₓ)(rₘᵢₙ)

And so now, if we were to multiply the variable omega by this same quantity (r-min) we will clearly get a speed which is clearly less than (c) which we will label as “(u)”.

Equation (2.4) __________ u = (ω)(rₘᵢₙ)

Using this notation equation (2.3) can now be written as

Equation (2.5) _________ E = (ħωₘₐₓ)(u/c)

Now, clearly (u) represents the linear speed associated with the angular speed of oscillation, which means that

the speed of light (c) equates to the maximum linear speed of angular oscillation.

This is interesting because, to date, there is no provable or, for that matter, even credible explanation for why there should exist a maximum speed in the universe. But the very existence of any sort of physical maximum implies that something physical must be limiting behavior.

Consequently it seems not unreasonable to suggest that maybe the speed of light (c) could, actually be the result of the physical upper-limit that simple geometry places on the “angular speed” of an angular oscillation of a quantum unit of space. We will elevate this idea to a postulate of this work, and write it as

Equation (2.6) ____________ c = uₘₐₓ

Now, we believe that this is more than just a wild guess, because this postulate leads to some interesting results that seem to explain a large swathe of Modern Physics.

The ratio of (u) over (c)

The first of these is that since (c)is a constant, then what we have in equation (2.5) is a form of the Planck Einstein Relation that says that the energy in a photon of light is determined solely by its own “speed of oscillation”. Which is interesting…

A second result is that we can now see that (θ/θₘₐₓ), (ω/ωₘₐₓ), (f/fₘₐₓ), and (u/uₘₐₓ) are, in fact, all different forms of the dimensionless quantity (u/c).

Eq. (2.7) ________ (u/c) = (θ/θₘₐₓ) = (ω/ωₘₐₓ) = (f/fₘₐₓ) = (u/uₘₐₓ)

This means that each of these values (associated with an elementary spatial oscillation) can be expressed as a fraction of their maximum value.

Equation (2.8) ___________ θ = (θₘₐₓ)(u/c)

Equation (2.9) __________ ω = (ωₘₐₓ)(u/c)

Equation (2.10) __________ f = (fₘₐₓ)(u/c)

Equation (2.11) _________ u = (uₘₐₓ)(u/c)

And a third result is that the quantity (ħωₘₐₓ) clearly equates to the maximum energy of a photon (E-max) which means that equation (2.5) can also be written as

Equation (2.12) _________ E = (Eₘₐₓ)(u/c)

Given the values of (h-bar) and (ω-max), E-max has a value of 1.9561 x 10⁹ Joules.

This quantity is already known to Physics as the so-called “Planck-Energy”, and so equation (2.14) now tells us what this mysterious quantity of energy actually represents. 

E-max is the maximum allowable energy containable in an elementary spatial oscillation.

These are all interesting results. But there is more…

Special Relativity

The connection between (u-max) and (c) points to a similar connection between the domain of Quantum Physics, and the domain of Special Relativity.

We know that the Planck Energy is related to the Planck Mass in the following way

Equation (2.13) _________ Eₘₐₓ = (mₘₐₓ cc)

And so if we combine equations (2.12) and (2.13) we get an equation for energy written in terms of both, the Planck Mass, and the Speed of Oscillation

Equation (2.14) ________ E = (mₘₐₓ cc)(u/c)

And by cancelation this reduces to

Equation (2.15) __________ E = (mₘₐₓ u c)

Alternatively, using equation (2.6), we could also write this equation as

Equation (2.16) _________ E = (mₘₐₓ u uₘₐₓ)

Now, for an observer moving with the oscillating photon there is no perceived linear motion to this oscillation, so the “SQUARED” version of equation (2.16) can be written as

Equation (2.17) _________ E² = (mₘₐₓ u uₘₐₓ

However, as we all know, speed is relative, and consequently the squared version of equation (2.16) is NOT the same for all observers.

Any observer outside the frame of oscillation will see the total energy content as being DISTRIBUTED between a speed of oscillation, and a speed of linear motion.

Consequently, the general form for the energy within an oscillation (from the point of view of ALL observers) must be written as

Eq. (2.18) ____ E² = (mₘₐₓ u uᵣₑₗ)² + (mₘₐₓ u vᵣₑₗ (rel means relative to observer)

This is the full equation for the energy contained in an oscillation from the point of view of ANY observer in ANY frame of reference.

Distribution of energy content (between oscillatory and linear motion)
Distribution of energy content (between oscillatory and linear motion)

This is another significant result for it suggests that:

Although the energy content of the photon is the same for all observers, the distribution of that energy content can be different for different observers.

Moreover, if we equate equations (2.17) and (2.18) and divide both sides by the quantity (mₘₐₓ u) we get

Eq. (2.19) _________ (uₘₐₓ)² = (uᵣₑₗ)² + (vᵣₑₗ

And using equation (2.6) from above, we can rewrite this as

Eq. (2.20) __________ (c)² = (uᵣₑₗ)² + (vᵣₑₗ

This equation suggests that: although the speed of light (c) is indeed constant for all observers (as Einstein postulated in 1905), the distribution of that fixed speed is, in fact, “relative”.

Moreover, equation (2.20) can be rearranged as follows

Eq. (2.21) __________ (uᵣₑₗ)² = (c)² – (vᵣₑₗ

Eq. (2.22) _________ (uᵣₑₗ) = SQRT (c² – vᵣₑₗ²)

Eq. (2.23) _________ (uᵣₑₗ/c) = SQRT (1 – (vᵣₑₗ/c)²)

And this quantity (u-relative over c) is the inverse of gamma (γ), a quantity that is ubiquitous in Special Relativity.

We write this relationship as

Equation (2.24) _____________ uᵣₑₗ/c = 1/γ

It should be noted here that: the quantities (u) and (u-rel) are different quantities.

The quantity (u) determines the energy content, and the quantity (u-rel) reflects the observers measurement of the distribution of that energy content (measured as a distribution between two different forms of motion — oscillatory motion and linear motion)..

Without having to dive into all the gory details of Special Relativity, it is clear to see that this relative distribution of energy can explain the true nature of TIME .

Time is a relative quantity; not because the speed of light (c) is fixed, but because the distribution of (c) is relative; and so “Observed-Time” is always relative to the observers relative motion.

Einstein was right to believe that Time is Relative, that it is a subjective quantity. And here we can clearly see why that is the case.

Time is really just a consequence of the fact that:

while all spatial oscillations have an angular cycle, not all angular cycles are created equal (some have more radians than others)

It also means that TIME is not really a thing in itself, NOR is it a “fourth” dimension. TIME is but an emergent property of oscillating 3D-Space.

This is another important result of this work. However, there is more…

Energy-Momentum Relation

It is clear to see that (mₘₐₓ u) can also be written as (mc), so this means that we can convert equation (2.18) to

Eq. (2.25) ___________ E² = (m c uᵣₑₗ)² + (m c vᵣₑₗ

And since the quantity (m vᵣₑₗ) represents “relative momentum”, we can write equation (2.25) as

Eq. (2.26) ____________ E² = (m c uᵣₑₗ)² + (pᵣₑₗ c)²

If this equation appears familiar, it is because this equation is reminiscent of the traditional “Energy-Momentum Relation” in which both Energy (E) and Momentum (p) are considered “relativistic” quantities.

In equation (2.26), however, momentum is relative, but energy is NOT.

The reason being is that although “observed” momentum is relative, so too is the “observed” speed of oscillation; and so the value of this relative momentum has no effect on the value of energy (E), but merely on the “Observed Distribution” of energy (E-squared).

Equation (2.26) shows that different observers see different distributions of Rest Energy and Momentum Energy.

This is another important result of this work. However, there is more…

Maximum Speed

While, velocity may be relative, a change in velocity is absolute.

Therefore given the existence of a maximum energy (allowable per unit volume), then there must also be a maximum allowable change in velocity for a given value of (u) — regardless of the observer’s own frame of reference.

To calculate this maximum allowable change in velocity, we will start with the observation that, for any change in energy, the following equation will hold true.

Equation (2.27) __________ E = (u/u)E

Since we know that there is a limit to the quantity of energy allowable per unit volume, the equation for a maximum change in energy is therefore given by

Equation (2.28) _________ Eₘₐₓ = (uₘₐₓ /u)E

This equation tells us that the maximum change in energy is determined solely by the current value of (u-1), and thus we can use (u-1) to calculate the maximum change in velocity (delta-v-max).

Eq. (2.29) _________ (Δvₘₐₓ)² = (uₘₐₓ)² – (u

Eq. (2.30) __________ (Δvₘₐₓ)² = (c)² – (u

Eq. (2.31) __________ Δvₘₐₓ = SQRT (c² – u²)

So here we see that: the maximum speed a particle can achieve is determined by its own internal speed of oscillation. Consequently, only things that have very low energy (such as light) are capable of travelling close to the universe’s maximum speed (c).

This is another important result of this work. But, there is one more thing worth looking at…

Kinetic Inertia

Associated with any absolute change in velocity, is an absolute change in Kinetic Energy. Thus we can express a change in energy in an alternative way from before.

Equation (2.32) ___________ E = E + ΔE

Now, we can replace (delta-E) with a quantity representing a Change in Kinetic Energy

Equation (2.33) __________ E = E + ½mv²

And, we can rearrange this equation, to get

Equation (2.34) ___________ ½mv² = E – E

And using equation (2.27) from above, we can rewrite this equation as

Eq. (2.35) ___________ ½mv² = (u/u)E – E

And this can be rewritten as

Eq. (2.36) __________ ½mv² = E ((u – u)/u)

Which can be rewritten as

Eq. (2.37) ____________ ½mv² = E (Δu/u)

And, using equation (2.15), this can be rewritten as

Eq. (2.38) _________ ½mv² = (mₘₐₓ u c)(Δu/u)

And this can be rewritten as

Equation (2.39) ___________ ½mv² = (mₘₐₓ Δu c)

Which can be rewritten as

Equation (2.40) _____________ ½mv² = (Δm c c)

This equation says that an absolute change in Kinetic Energy equates to an absolute change in Mass…

This is probably the most important take-home message of this work on energy, because it concerns the very nature of energy itself.

We all know that the faster something moves the harder it is to stop, and here we see that the faster something moves, the more massive it becomes, which makes it not only harder to stop but also harder to accelerate further. These two facts taken together suggests that energy is really just a form of “INERTIA”.

Summary & Conclusion

Before Einstein, the concept of energy was always simply associated with the concept of motion (or, the potential for motion).

But then everything changed when Einstein published a paper that asked the question “Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?”

The received message of this famous paper is that “Mass is also a form of Energy”;

However, it seems possible that the true message has never been fully appreciated (not even by Einstein himself).

If the supposition that it is Space that is quantized (NOT energy) is the correct interpretation of Planck’s work, then this conjecture must ultimately lead us to the conclusion that ALL ENERGY (both rest energy and momentum energy) is simply a form of INERTIAL MASS; and consequently, contrary to what is taught, there can be no such thing as “massless energy”. All energy is inertia. And all “work” is simply “a transfer of inertia”.

This conjecture also suggests that Inertial Mass is not really a thing in itself, but an emergent property of the dynamics of Quantum 3D-Space, which can be clearly shown by rewriting equation (2.14) as follows

Equation (2.41) _________ mcc = (mₘₐₓ cc)(u/c)

Equation (2.42) ___________ m = (mₘₐₓ)(u/c)

Here we see that the quantity of inertial mass “GENERATED” is determined by the speed of spatial oscillation; (and how and why this should come to be so, we will come to next)…

© Kieran D. Kelly

This is Post #3 in the series on NeoClassical Quantum Theory

Note: The processes in Nature leave the mass intact by decomposition. Only human species managed to “exhaust” Earth mass.

My conjecture is that a Star explodes when its Mass can no longer sustain the required energy needed in its processes.

Which of their Inventions Impacted the World Forever?

By Wu Mingren

June 10, 2019

The Phoenicians were an ancient people who once ruled the Mediterranean.

Despite little being known about them as very few of their inscriptions have survived, their legacy has had an enormous impact on the world, which is still felt today.

Ice Age Hunters’ DNA Reveals The Origins Of Farming

The Phoenicians were renowned as excellent mariners and used their expertise to trade all across the Mediterranean. One of the most notable signs of their trade activity is the establishment of Carthage, in present day Tunisia. They were also the inventors of the alphabet.

The History of the Phoenicians

According to tradition, the city of Carthage was founded as a colony in 814 BC by Phoenicians under the leadership of the legendary Queen Dido (Alissar).

The Carthaginians themselves became a dominant maritime power in the western Mediterranean, until its final destruction by Rome in 146 BC, following their defeat in the Punic Wars .

Apart from Carthage, the Phoenicians founded colonies on Cyprus, Sicily, Greece, France, Spain and in current Turkey.

The greater part of the territory they once occupied corresponds to modern day Lebanon, but the Phoenicians also held parts of southern Syria and northern Israel.

The Phoenician Alphabet

The Phoenicians made numerous contributions to human civilization, the most notable of which being the Phoenician alphabet , which is the ancestor of many other alphabets that are used today.

Scholars have speculated that the Phoenicians referred to themselves as ‘Kena’ani’ (‘Kinahna’ in Akkadian, or ‘Canaanite’ in English). Interestingly, in Hebrew, this word also meant ‘merchant’, which is an apt description of the Phoenicians.

The term ‘Phoenicians’, however, is commonly used today, as it was the Greeks who called these people by this name.

The ancient Greeks referred to the land of the Phoenicians as ‘Phoiniki’, which is derived from the Egyptian ‘Fnkhw’, meaning ‘Syrian’.

The Greek ‘Phoiniki’ is phonetically similar to their word for the color purple or crimson (‘phoînix’).

This is due to the fact that one of the most valuable objects produced and exported by the Phoenicians was a dye known as Tyrian purple. Thus, the Phoenicians were known also as the ‘Purple People’.

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Phoenicians were originally from the Red Sea area, but later emigrated to and settled along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

Archaeologists today regard Herodotus’ account of the Phoenicians’ origins as a myth.

In addition, there is a lack of evidence to support the claims that the Phoenicians emigrated to the eastern Mediterranean from other areas of the ancient world.

Instead, it is accepted that the Phoenicians were originally from the eastern Mediterranean and may have developed from the Ghassulian culture, which is an archaeological stage in southern Palestine dating to the Middle Chalcolithic period, i.e. the 4 th millennium BC.

The Phoenicians Flourish as Traders

The Phoenicians flourished during the 1 st millennium BC. During that time, there were other Canaanite cultures inhabiting the region as well, and archaeologists are unable to differentiate between the Phoenicians and these other cultures in terms of material culture, language, and religious beliefs.

This is due to the fact that the Phoenicians were themselves Canaanites. Nevertheless, the Phoenicians distinguished themselves from their Canaanite brethren by their achievements as seafarers and traders.

The Phoenicians flourished as marine merchants. (Baddu676 / Public Domain)

The Phoenicians flourished as marine merchants. (Baddu676 / Public Domain )

As mentioned before, the Greek ‘Phoiniki’ is associated with the dye known as Tyrian purple, which was traded by the Phoenicians. Indeed, this was one of the best-known products of Phoenicia.

Tyrian purple was a highly-prized dye that was made using several species of sea snails belonging to the Muricidae family (commonly known as murex snails).

One legend states that it was the Greek hero Hercules who discovered this dye. According to this tale, Hercules was strolling along the beach with a nymph, Tyrus, and his dog. Hercules’ dog came across a murex shell and devoured it. When the dog returned to its master its mouth was stained a brilliant purple.

Tyrus found the color so attractive that she requested from Hercules a robe of the of the same color as the price for her hand in marriage. Hercules obliged and gathered enough murex snails to produce the dye necessary to color Tyrus’ robe.

In reality, Tyrian purple was discovered by the Phoenician. Although nobody is certain today as to how the dye’s discovery was made, it is entirely possible that it was accidental, similar to the Hercules story.

The discovery of Tyrian purple, which was made famous by the Phoenicians. (Lomojo / Public Domain)

The discovery of Tyrian purple, which was made famous by the Phoenicians. (Lomojo / Public Domain )

Tyrian purple was not the only trade object that the Phoenicians were famous for.

Glass was another valuable product that the Phoenicians exported to the rest of the Mediterranean. Glass was already being produced by other civilizations including the Mesopotamians and Egyptians.

The glass produced by these civilizations was colored and it is speculated that the Phoenicians were the first ones to produce transparent glass.

Yet another produce of Phoenicia was cedar wood, which the region is famous for, as far back as the Mesopotamian period. One of the main consumers of cedar wood during the 1 st millennium BC was Egypt, as the demand for wood by the Egyptians was greater than the local supply.

Therefore, cedar wood was imported into Egypt from Phoenicia. During the 14 th century BC, for instance, the Phoenicians paid tribute to Egypt by offering cedar wood, as attested in the Amarna Letters (a city in Lebanon).

The fame of the cedar wood from Phoenicia is also seen in the Story of Wenamun . In this Egyptian tale, Wenamun, a priest from the Amun Temple in Karnak sets off in a Phoenician ship to Byblos to purchase timber for the construction of a solar boat.

As superb seafarers, the Phoenician merchants need not rely solely on the goods locally produced in Phoenicia. They were more than capable of traveling to the far corners of the Mediterranean to obtain resources that they did not have back home.

The most important of these were precious metals – tin and silver from Spain (and perhaps as far as Cornwall in England) and copper from Cyprus.

Colonies were set up along the trade routes in order to facilitate the journey of the Phoenician merchants. Moreover, Phoenicia is situated in a geographically strategic position that allowed it to further increase its wealth from trade.

The land of the Phoenicians is located between Mesopotamia in the east and Egypt and Arabia in the south / southwest. 

Trade routes between these two areas of the ancient world had to pass through Phoenicia thereby enriching the Phoenicians even further.

Map of Phoenicia and its Mediterranean trade routes. (Ras67 / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Map of Phoenicia and its Mediterranean trade routes. (Ras67 / CC BY-SA 3.0 )

Did the Phoenicians Come Together as a Nation?

We do not know to whether the Phoenicians had a shared identity and if they considered themselves as a single nation. Nevertheless, we do know that they established city states which were politically independent.

The rise of these Phoenician city states occurred around 12th / 11th centuries BC.

Around this time, the old powers that dominated the region, i.e. the Egyptians and the Hittites , had either been weakened or were destroyed. For instance, the arrival of the Sea Peoples led to the decline of the New Kingdom in Egypt, while the Hittite Empire was breaking up around the same time.

The Phoenicians seized the opportunity to fill the power vacuum left behind by these empires by establishing their own city states. It seems that each city state was ruled by a monarch, whose power was limited by a powerful oligarchy.

In addition, there is no evidence that the cities banded together into a federation. Instead, they operated independently. Among the most notable Phoenician city states were TyreSidon, and Byblos.

Byblos (known today in Arabic as Jbail) is located about 30 kilometers (20 miles) to the north of modern day Beirut. Its history stretches way back before its rise as a powerful Phoenician city state during the 12th century BC.

Byblos is considered to be one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world and according to the archaeological evidence was settled by human beings as early as the Neolithic period.

By the 4th millennium BC Byblos had grown into an extensive settlement. Byblos became the main harbor from which cedar wood was exported to Egypt. As a result of this, the city developed into an important trade center.

Byblos became an Egyptian dependency during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC and maintained close ties with Egypt in the following centuries.

With the decline and subsequent collapse of the Egyptian New Kingdom during the 11th century BC, Byblos became the leading city state in Phoenicia.

By around 1000 BC, Byblos was eclipsed by two other independent Phoenician city states, Sidon and Tyre. Like Byblos, Sidon (known today in Arabic as Saida) was already an ancient city by the time it became an independent city state.

Sidon was established during the 3rd millennium BC and prospered in the following millennium as a result of trade. On the other hand, Tyre (known today in Arabic as Sur) was probably originally founded as a colony of Sidon.

Like Byblos and Sidon, Tyre too became an independent city state when the Egyptians lost their grip over that region.

In time, Tyre surpassed Sidon as the most important Phoenician city state as it traded and established its own colonies in other parts of the Mediterranean.

According to tradition, the famous city of Carthage was established as a colony of Tyre in 814 BC.

Archaeological site of Carthage, city established by the Phoenicians. (Eric00000007 / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Archaeological site of Carthage, city established by the Phoenicians. (Eric00000007 / CC BY-SA 3.0 )

Both Sidon and Tyre are also mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. For instance, the king of Tyre, Hiram, is recorded as providing Solomon the materials required for building the temple in Jerusalem.

The Phoenicians Lose Their Independence

The Phoenician city states were not able to hold on to their independence for long.

The wealth of these city states must have attracted the attention of foreign military powers.

During the 8 th and 7 th centuries BC, the Phoenician city states came under the rule of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
In 538 BC, Phoenicia was conquered by Cyrus the Great and came under Persian rule. Although the Phoenicians had lost their independence their cities continued to flourish. (The civilization of Persia in infrastructure was due to the transferred Artisans and Expert from Syria and Lebanon)

Due to their expertise in seafaring, the Phoenicians supplied ships for the Persian kings. Persian rule over Phoenicia ended during the 4th century BC, when the region fell to Alexander the Great .

One of the major battles of Alexander’s campaign against the Persian Empire was the Siege of Tyre, which occurred in 332 BC. As the naval base of the Persians, Alexander knew that it would be unwise to leave it in the hands of the enemy as he continued his campaign southwards.

He was also aware that Tyre would not fall so easily, as it was situated on an island off the mainland and was heavily fortified.

Therefore, he requested permission to offer sacrifices at the Temple of Melqart, the Phoenician god identified with the Greek hero Heracles, in the hopes that he would be allowed to enter the city. Alexander’s request was rejected, so he sent heralds to issue an ultimatum to the Tyrians – surrender or be conquered. In response, the Tyrians killed the heralds and threw them off the city walls.

Alexander the Great at the Siege of Tyre attacking the Phoenicians. (पाटलिपुत्र / Public Domain)

Alexander the Great at the Siege of Tyre attacking the Phoenicians. ( पाटलिपुत्र / Public Domain )

Enraged by the Tyrian’s defiance, Alexander proceeded to besiege the city.

Due to the lack of a naval force the Macedonians were unable to assault the city directly. Instead, Alexander’s engineers began building a causeway to connect the island to the mainland. The Tyrians in turn sought to hamper the construction of the causeway, which was successful, until the arrival of a fleet of ships from Cyprus, as well as those that defected to Alexander from the Persians.

(The essential question is: How come Carthage refrained from supporting Tyre? It had the largest maritime fleet)

Eventually, the causeway was completed, and the Macedonians stormed and captured the city. The entire siege lasted seven months. Still furious with the Tyrians, Alexander executed about 10,000 of the city’s inhabitants, while another 30,000 were sold into slavery.

In the years following the death of Alexander the Great, Phoenicia was one of the regions fought over by the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, two of Alexander’s successors.

During this period, the Phoenicians were gradually Hellenized, and their original identity was slowly being replaced. Finally, Phoenicia was incorporated by Pompey as part of the Roman province of Syria in 65 BC.

Although the Phoenicians disappeared from the pages of history, they are still remembered today as expert seafarers and merchants. This reputation, however, pales in comparison to the greatest contribution made by the Phoenicians to the modern world – the alphabet.

Like much of the Middle East during that time, the Phoenicians used a script known as cuneiform which originated in Mesopotamia. By around 1200 BC the Phoenicians had developed their own script. The earliest known example of the Phoenician script is found on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram, which was discovered in Byblos.

The Phoenician alphabet was later adopted by the Greeks who kept some characters while removing others.

The Greek alphabet was in turn adopted by the Romans resulting in its spread all across Europe. Additionally, the Phoenician alphabet is considered to be the basis of other Middle Eastern, as well as Indian alphabets, either directly or indirectly.

Sarcophagus of Ahiram with Phoenician writing. (Emnamizouni / CC BY-SA 4.0)

Sarcophagus of Ahiram with Phoenician writing. (Emnamizouni / CC BY-SA 4.0 )

Top image: Phoenician stone sculpture ( disq / Adobe Stock)

By Wu Mingren

What is combinatorics?

Emily DeHoff

Apr 26, 2022

The first in a series of articles focused on combinatorics. When I first took a discrete math course in college, I jokingly told my friends that here I was, a math major, learning how to count.

Honestly though, I don’t know of a better way to describe combinatorics.

Photo by Waldemar Brandt on Unsplash

I can say that it’s one of my favorite fields of math (along with graph theory) not just because the subject itself is so intriguing, but because it’s something you can easily talk about with people who aren’t as comfy with mathematics yet.

It’s simultaneously accessible and rich with open, unanswered questions. (Not a comfortable state of mind)

Before we dive into the nitty gritty though, let’s zoom out and see where combinatorics stands in the grand scheme of mathematics.

Let’s start with a broad overview. Here’s a really cool video made by Dominic Walliman that illustrates the various fields of math and how they fit together.

In his video, Dominic begins by dividing math into two main (although definitely not exclusive) categories: pure and applied.

But that’s not the only way to see math. We could also start by considering two very different categories: discrete and continuous. 

Discrete math deals with objects that are distinct from one another and can be counted with the natural numbers (0,1,2,3,…). This means we don’t really bother thinking about real numbers, calculus, Euclidean geometry, any of that messy continuous stuff.

There are many fields that exist under the broad umbrella of discrete math. Some of these include graph theorygame theorynumber theorycomputer science, and of course, combinatorics.

Broadly speaking, combinatorics is the math of counting things.

To get a sense of what that actually means, here are a few questions that combinatorics can help answer:

  • Given a standard deck of 52 cards, how many cards would you need to draw in order to guarantee you have a spade in your hand?
  • How many distinct passwords can you create with the letters A-Z and numbers 0–9?
  • How many ways can we distribute 20 identical pencils to 7 students?
  • How many distinct ways can we rearrange the letters in MISSISSIPPI?

These are just a few examples of questions we’re going to work through in this series.

Along the way, we’ll also see some cool families of numbers, some intriguing applications, and a heck of a lot of cool math.

If your interest is piqued and you’re already ready for more, go check out this cool video from Numberphile.

(How about writing a few examples of that video?)

“I am Israel”?

Jah militant posted on FB, and Written by Professor Norman Finkelstein.

May 9, 2022

Did I come to a land without a people for a people without a land?

Those people who happened to be here, had no right to be here, and my people showed them they had to leave or die, razing 400 Palestinian villages to the ground, erasing their history

.”I am Israel”.

Some of my people committed massacres and later became Prime Ministers to represent me.

In 1948, Menachem Begin was in charge of the unit that slaughtered the inhabitants of Deir Yassin, including 100 women and children.

In 1953, Ariel Sharon led the slaughter of the inhabitants of Qibya, and in 1982 arranged for our allies to butcher around 2,000 in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.

I am Israel.

Carved in 1948 out of 78% of the land of Palestine, dispossessing its inhabitants and replacing them with Jews from Europe and other parts of the world.

(Mind you that the first Palestinian Intifada in 1935 demanded from the British mandated power to arrange for municipal election and denied them this right on the ground that Jews represented barely 20% of the population)

While the natives whose families lived on this land for thousands of years are not allowed to return, Jews from all over the world are welcome to instant citizenship.

I am Israel.

In 1967, I swallowed the remaining lands of Palestine – East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza – and placed their inhabitants under an oppressive military rule, controlling and humiliating every aspect of their daily lives.

Eventually, they should get the message that they are not welcome to stay, and join the millions of Palestinian refugees in the shanty camps of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria….

I am Israel.

I have the power to control American policy. My American Israel Public Affairs Committee can make or break any politician of its choosing, and as you see, they all compete to please me.

All the forces of the world are powerless against me, including the UN as I have the American veto to block any condemnation of my war crimes.

As Sharon so eloquently phrased it, “We control America”.

I am Israel.

I influence American mainstream media too, and you will always find the news tailored to my favor. I have invested millions of dollars into PR representation, and CNN, New York Times, and others have been doing an excellent job of promoting my propaganda.

Look at other international news sources and you will see the difference.

You Palestinians want to negotiate “peace!?”

But you are not as smart as me; I will negotiate, but will only let you have your municipalities while I control your borders, your water, your airspace and anything else of importance.

While we “negotiate,” I will swallow your hilltops and fill them with settlements, populated by the most extremist of my extremists, armed to the teeth.

These settlements will be connected with roads you cannot use, and you will be imprisoned in your little Bantustans between them, surrounded by checkpoints in every direction.

I am Israel.

I have the fourth strongest army in the world, possessing nuclear weapons. (From USA tax payers)

How dare your children confront my oppression with stones, don’t you know my soldiers won’t hesitate to blow their heads off? (Last week, Israeli sniper shot dead a Palestinian/American journalist, Shirine Abu Akli, for daring to cover the Jenine camp attack by Israeli army)

In 17 months, I have killed 900 of you and injured 17,000, mostly civilians, and have the mandate to continue since the international community remains silent.

Ignore, as I do, the hundreds of Israeli reserve officers who are now refusing to carry out my control over your lands and people; their voices of conscience will not protect you.

Iam Israel.

You want freedom? I have bullets, tanks, missiles, Apaches and F-16s to obliterate you.

I have placed your towns under siege, confiscated your lands, uprooted your trees, thousand of years Olive trees, demolished your homes, and you still demand freedom?

Don’t you get the message? You will never have peace or freedom, because I am Israel.’-

Written by Professor Norman Finkelstein.

Jah militant

Society & culture websiteSend message13713750 Comments102 SharesLikeCommentShare

Ramanujan’s Nested Radical Problem.

Note: I have watched the movie on Ramanujan.
Ujjwal Singh

Aug 29, 2021

Left: Srinivasa Ramanujan. Right: The problem posed by Ramanujan in the Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society.

In 1911, the Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan posed the above problem in the Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society.

After waiting in vain for a few months, he himself provided a solution to the same journal

In this article, we go over Ramanujan’s solution (taking note of its spell-binding simplicity) along with exploring a calculus-based approach for the problem.


But first, let us state us state a few important things explicitly.

  1. We will work on the assumption that the sequence given above converges. Strictly speaking, we should first prove the convergence of the sequence, and then go about finding its limit. However, for the sake of simplicity, we’d take the sequence’s convergence for granted, and just focus on finding the limit.
  2. The solution presented below is not the exact one provided by Ramanujan in the journal. Rather, it’s a simplified version, the intention being to capture the gist of Ramanujan’s solution.

Ramanujan’s Solution

Note that for any non-negative real number x, we have —

Now, (x + 2) can again be written as ((x + 1) + 1), to get —

Carrying on with the process and writing (x + 3) as ((x + 2) + 1), we get —

The pattern is pretty visible by now. It’s clear that if we carry on this process infinitely, we’d land at —

Now comes the magic! Plugging in x = 2, we get —

The solution to our problem turns out to be just !

It’s hard not to wonder at the remarkable stroke of genius at the heart of this solution. Who would have thought that representing a number as the square root of its square could lead to such a beautiful identity?

Also, the above serves as an excellent example of a broader category of problems — wherein the problem posed is a particular case of more general identity.

In such cases, we discover the general identity first and then plug in suitable values to get the desired result.

For example, we can now easily say that —

So, that was Ramanujan’s solution to the problem. Next, we move on to explore a calculus-based approach for the same!

A Calculus-Based Solution

Another disclaimer: We assume the existence of a differentiable real-valued function f, defined implicitly as 

Again, we have forsaken some mathematical rigor here, by assuming that such a function exists without actually proving the same. Now, our goal is — provided such a function exists, can we exploit it to solve our original problem?

Note that —

Carrying on, we arrive at —

As would be clearly visible by now, the solution to our problem is — f(2)! That is because,

Of course, the above is what inspired our function definition in the first place! Now, let’s try finding out the value of f(2).


Now, let’s see what the derivative of f(x) tells us!

Again, setting x = 0 in [3], we get —

We’re almost there! Getting back to the original equation —

There we have it! The value of f(2), and thereby the answer to our problem, is 3!

Concluding Remarks

To add some historical context, Ramanujan published this problem in 1911, while trying to establish himself within the national mathematical community.

A couple of years later, he’d get in contact with G.H. Hardy, move to Cambridge, and over the next five (during WW1) years the duo would go on to form one of the most productive mathematical partnerships ever.

Of course, Ramanujan is a name that needs no special introduction. His life and achievements have already been thoroughly documented. This article (as well as the problem posed by Ramanujan in the Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society) is merely a teaser from one of his favorite domains — nested radicals and continued fractions.

As was typical of him, Ramanujan possessed an all-absorbing interest in particular fields of mathematics, while remaining completely oblivious to the rest.

Who could have better understood this than Hardy himself! We end this article with a brilliant quote from him which aptly sums up Ramanujan—

The limitations of his knowledge were as startling as its profundity. Here was a man who could work out modular equations and theorems… to orders unheard of, whose mastery of continued fractions was… beyond that of any mathematician in the world;

And yet he had never heard of a doubly periodic function or of Cauchy’s theorem, and had indeed but the vaguest idea of what a function of a complex variable was

— G.H. Hardy

La France, vis à vis de la Syrie, un rare cas de psychiatrie exacerbé

par René Naba.

May 10, 2022

Interview à la revue Golias

1. La France, en phase d’essoufflement, risque un phénomène d’hystérésis

2. L’imposture des grandes démocraties occidentales

3. L’imposture de l’idée même des révolutions arabes

4. Sous produit de la Mondialisation, le djihadisme planétaire a généré un Islam anthropophage

Golias : Pourquoi ce livre ?

René Naba : L’emballement pour l’Ukraine en 2022 a été à la mesure de la détestation de la France pour la Syrie en 2011 et surtout du mutisme assourdissant de la sphère occidentale à l’égard du Yémen, le plus pauvre pays arabe depuis 2015.

Ce fait a induit en moi une réflexion profonde sur la nature des ressorts psychologiques de la société française face aux événements majeures de l’Histoire contemporaine.

Mieux, si l’Occident s’est mobilisé pour livrer des armes à l’Ukraine agressée, il s’était mobilisé, en sens inverse, via son alliance avec la Turquie et le Qatar, pour expédier des milliers de terroristes islamistes en Syrie, agressé, lui, par une coalition islamo-atlantiste.

Pis, au Yémen, l’OTAN a envoyé des armes – non au Yémen agressé –, mais aux pétromonarchies, ses agresseurs en une belle illustration de la distorsion mentale et morale des « grandes démocraties occidentales ».

Pour mémoire, l’Occident, et plus précisément, la France et les États-Unis se sont impliqués directement dans ce massacre qui a fait jusqu’à présent plus de 250 000 victimes civiles yéménites.

Selon l’enquête du média indépendant Disclose, et ses révélations sur les ventes d’armes, la France a ainsi fourni plus de 132 canons d’artillerie Caesar et 70 chars Leclerc ultra modernes qui ont été dirigés vers la frontière yéménite, dès leur réception.

De surcroît deux frégates françaises participent au blocus naval qui affame plusieurs millions de Yéménites.

Il est vrai que l’Arabie saoudite et les Émirats arabes unis relèvent de « l’Islam des lumières », théorisé par le philosophe du botulisme Bernard Henry Lévy et par extension appartiennent au « camp du bien », normalisateur avec Israël, et non à « l’axe du mal », selon la définition de George Bush Jr.

Journaliste de profession, qui plus est dans une institution, l’Agence France Presse, où la fantaisie est rarement de mise, je me suis appliqué la même approche méthodologique que celle à laquelle je m’étais astreint du temps de l’exercice de mon activité.

Une lecture fractale de l’Histoire m’a conduit à des conclusions ahurissantes.

Une lecture fractale est une approche diatonique qui combine l’espace et le temps, l’histoire et la géographie, une lecture radicale en somme, qui ne signifie nullement une lecture extrémiste, mais une lecture qui consiste à prendre les choses par la racine.

Golias : Quelles sont les conclusions de cette approche ?

René Naba : 1ère conclusion

Au survol d’un siècle, la France (mandated western power after WW1 over Turkey and Syria) aura amputé la Syrie à trois reprises :

  1. Du Liban, pour en faire un fief maronite sous couvert de coexistence islamo-chrétienne ; du
  2. District d’Alexandrette, pour en faire un cadeau à la Turquie, son ennemi de la 1ère Guerre Mondiale, sans doute au titre de gratification pour le génocide des Arméniens, quand bien même, la France, se pose, paradoxalement, en tant que « Protectrice des chrétiens d’Orient » ;

3. La 3ème fois, au XXIe siècle, à l’occasion de la séquence dite du « Printemps arabe », en s’associant à nouveau avec le président islamiste de la Turquie, elle, « le pays de la laïcité », pour détruire la Syrie, ce pays anciennement sous son mandat, et y aménager une zone autonome kurde à Raqqa, dans le Nord Est de la Syrie.

Trois fois en un siècle.

Cette fixation obsessionnelle révèle un rare cas de psychiatrie exacerbé à l’égard d’un pays qu’elle s’est acharnée à réduire à sa portion congrue, alors qu’elle se proposait au départ d’en faire « une Grande Syrie », à en juger par les instructions d’Aristide Briand, à son négociateur Georges Picot.

En Syrie, le projet français ne manquait pourtant ni d’audace ni de grandeur. La France se proposait de constituer une « Grande Syrie » englobant Jérusalem Bethléem, Beyrouth, Damas, Alep, Van, Diyarbakir, jusque même Mossoul, c’est à dire un territoire englobant la Syrie, une partie du Liban, de la Palestine, de la Turquie et le nord kurdophone d’Irak.

Face aux habiles négociateurs anglais, la Syrie, du fait de la France et contrairement à ses promesses, a été réduite à sa portion congrue au prix d’une quadruple amputation, délestée non seulement de tous les territoires périphériques (Palestine, Liban, Turquie et Irak), mais également amputée dans son propre territoire national du district d’Alexandrette.

(Cf à ce propos Paris 2 novembre 1915 (Archives du ministère des affaires étrangères) Instructions d’Aristide Briand, ministre des Affaires étrangères (1862-1932) à Georges Picot, consul de France à Beyrouth.

Document publié dans « Atlas du Monde arabe géopolitique et société » par Philippe Fargues et Rafic Boustany, préface de Maxime Rodinson (Éditions Bordas)).

2ème conclusion : La France est un pays qui pratique la « fuite en avant »

La France pratique une fuite en avant pour se dégager d’un examen critique préjudiciable à son orgueil propre national : La défaite de Sedan (1870) a débouché sur la proclamation de la IIIe République, la capitulation de Retondes (1940) sur la IVe République ; La capitulation de Dien Bien Phu (1954) sur la Ve République.

Cet évitement de responsabilité explique les récidives françaises.

Une lecture fractale de l’histoire de France donnerait le bilan suivant : Unique grand pays européen à l’articulation majeure des deux « penchants criminels de l’Europe démocratique », –

  1. la traite négrière et le génocide hitlérien -,
  2. la France est aussi le seul pays au monde à exiger d’une de ses colonies une indemnité compensatoire à la rétrocession de son indépendance (Haïti).
  3. Bref : Le seul pays au monde dont le comportement erratique est aux antipodes de la rationalité cartésienne dont il se revendique.

3ème conclusion : La France est un pays de la bravache et de la fanfaronnade.

Lors du déclenchement de la IIème Guerre mondiale : le cri de ralliement des Français était « Nous vaincrons parce que nous sommes les plus forts », quand Winston Churchill, le premier ministre britannique, promettait à son peuple « des larmes, des sueurs et du sang ».

Résultat, les Français ont capitulé après neuf mois de combat, quand le Royaume-Uni servait de plate-forme à la reconquête de l’Europe et sa libération de l’Allemagne Nazie.

La France a perdu de ce fait son statut de grande puissance, selon l’historien Marcel Gauchet.

Elle n’a pas été repêché que grâce à son empire français, perdu depuis lors, et par la volonté des États Unis de disposer d’une base territoriale en Europe Occidentale à l’apogée de la guerre froide soviéto-américaine.


Un discours performatif est un discours créateur de droit.

Les Français en sont des adeptes convaincus, s’imaginant qu’il suffit d’affirmer péremptoire qu’ils sont les meilleurs pour l’être.

Même schéma en Syrie : « Bachar devait tomber tous les quinze jours »…

Résultat des courses, Nicolas Sarkozy et François Hollande ont quitté la scène politique, leurs deux ministres des Affaires étrangères Alain Juppé (post gaulliste) et Laurent Fabius (post socialiste), à l’origine de prestations calamiteuses à leur passage au Quai d’Orsay, se trouvent, eux, promus au prestigieux Conseil constitutionnel, en phase de congélation avancée.

Drôle de promotion, sans doute au mérite, qui explique la désaffection de plus en plus grande des Français envers la chose publique.

Au terme d’une double décennie calamiteuse, le pays de la laïcité et de la loi sur le séparatisme apparaît ainsi comme le grand perdant de la mondialisation, le grand perdant de l’européanisation du continent sous l’égide de l’Allemagne, le grand perdant de la bataille de Syrie, de Libye et de Crimée, le grand perdant de la pandémie du Covid et de l’Afrique.

Un bilan d’autant plus consternant que la France est ainsi le seul pays membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité à n’avoir pas réussi à produire un vaccin contre le Covid, alors qu’un petit pays de l’importance de Cuba a pu réaliser cet exploit. C’est dire l’ampleur de la déconfiture.

De surcroît, sur le plan international, ses alliés historiques, – les États Unis et le Royaume Uni -, lui ont administré une gifle magistrale dans la transaction des sous marins australiens et la conclusion de l’alliance Aukus, l’excluant du Pacifique, la ravalant au rang de puissance moyenne, alors que la France, déjà reléguée au rang de pays affinitaire en Syrie, est en phase du retrait du Mali, signe indiscutable de son essoufflement.

Avanie supplémentaire, la France est désormais supplantée par la Russie dans son rôle de protection des minorités chrétiennes d’Orient.

« C’est depuis Damas que Vladimir Poutine a entamé sa reconquête du statut de superpuissance et d’interlocuteur incontournable… C’est Damas qui détient la clé de maison Russie

La grande Syrie est partie intégrante du grand ensemble orthodoxe allant de l’Orient aux Balkans et à la Russie.

« C’est cette perception historique qui a amené la Russie actuelle à reprendre au pays du Cham (Bilad As Sham) le flambeau – que les Français lui ont longtemps disputé – de la « protection des chrétiens » », assénera Michel Raimbaud, ancien ambassadeur de France, aux hiérarques néo-conservateurs du Quai d’Orsay dans son ouvrage « Les guerres de Syrie », dépité de la dégradation de son pays du rôle de « chef de file de la coalition internationale de la guerre de Syrie » au rôle d’« affinitaire ».

La France est à un tournant de son histoire et opère ce virage de manière erratique, naviguant à vue en parant au plus pressé.

À n’y prendre garde, elle risque un phénomène d’hystérésis, un astre, brillant certes, mais éteint… brillant uniquement dans l’imaginaire de ses anciens admirateurs, au titre du fantasme.

Golias : Quel jugement portez vous sur les bi-nationaux franco- syriens ?

René Naba : Au vu de la lecture de ce bilan, les bi-nationaux franco-syriens devaient être terriblement assoiffés de notoriété, gorgés d’une grande vanité et d’une non moins grande cupidité pour se prêter à un tel simulacre, qui demeurera une tâche indélébile dans leur conscience.

Pensaient-ils vraiment, ces paons, peser sur le cours du conflit.

Ces expatriés pathétiques, sans aucune attache militante, sans la moindre tradition de lutte sur le terrain. Ces bureaucrates se sont révélés tout au plus des pantins. Leur sommeil doit être très agité, encore plus agité quand ils songent à l’accablement dont ils auront gratifié de leur ignominie, leur progéniture pour les générations à venir.

Très franchement entre la triplette constituée par le président Bachar Al Assad, son ministre des Affaires étrangères Walid al Mouallem et Bachar Al Jaafari, l’ambassadeur de Syrie à l’ONU et les têtards polymorphes mercenaires de l’opposition off shore pétromonarchique… « Y’avait pas photo ».

Le pouvoir syrien avait une parfaite maîtrise des rapports de force internationaux et une solide connaissance des dossiers quand l’opposition off shore, y compris des universitaires français du calibre de Bourhane Ghalioune et Basma Kodmani, ou Ahmad Sida et Riad Hijab fonctionnaient à la manière d’automates au ressort mal remonté.

Pis ; Spécialiste des Relations Internationales, Basma Kodmani s’est appliquée durant la durée de sa brève mandature au porte parolat de l’opposition offshore syrienne, à réclamer l’application du Chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations unies sur la Syrie, autorisant l’usage de la force contre son pays d’origine, ignorant gravement le fait que cette instance onusienne abritait deux pays alliés de poids de la Syrie, la Russie et la Chine, disposant du droit de veto.

La fonction d’un binational n’est pas d’être le porte-voix de son pays d’accueil, ni son porte-serviette, mais d’assumer avec vigueur la fonction d’interface exigeant et critique.

Un garde-fou à des débordements préjudiciables tant du pays d’origine que du pays d’accueil.

Dans l’intérêt bien compris des deux camps, le partenariat bi-national se doit de se faire, sur un pied d’égalité et non sur un rapport de subordination de l’ancien colonisé, le faisant apparaître comme le supplétif de son ancien colonisateur en ce que l’alliance du Faible au Fort tourne toujours à l’avantage du Plus Fort.

De la même manière, le devoir d’un intellectuel arabe et musulman dans la société occidentale est de faire conjuguer Islam et progressisme et non de provoquer une abdication intellectuelle devant un islamisme basique, invariablement placé sous les fourches caudines israélo-américaines.

Golias : Comment analysez vous le comportement de la presse française dans la couverture de la guerre de Syrie ?

René Naba : Les journaux jadis de référence ont fait office d’amplificateurs des thèses du pouvoir dans la grande tradition des régimes autocratiques qu’ils dénoncent avec véhémence par ailleurs.

Ainsi le Journal Libération se distinguera par deux bévues monumentales, commises précisément par son spécialiste maison, soutenu par sa béquille syrienne de service, en annonçant coup sur coup, l’éviction du général Ali Mamlouk, responsable de l’appareil sécuritaire du Syrien, et surtout la qualification d’un chef de l’opposition mercenaire pétro monarchique, Riad Hijab comme un « homme de taille », alors qu’il s’agissait tout bonnement d’un « homme de paille ».

Quant au Journal Le Monde, il a transformé ses colonnes en meurtrières y logeant des blogs toxiques et fantaisistes, tel Nabil Ennsari, un islamiste qatarophile marocain, qui noircira des pages entières du journal de déférence sur les turpitudes du président syrien, mais ne pipera mot sur les ignominies de son Roi du Maroc, dont la thèse, comme de juste, a porté sur le Mufti de l’OTAN, le millionnaire, Youssef Al Qaradawi, l’homme qui passera dans l’histoire pour avoir abjurer l’OTAN de bombarder la Syrie, un pays qui à livré trois guerres contre Israël.

Jamais Le Monde n’a enjoint à son digitaliste islamiste de publier une enquête, voire même une information sur ce « Royaume du bagne et de terreur » qu’est le Maroc.

Une deuxième meurtrière était animée par un « œil borgne sur la Syrie », en raison de sa vision hémiplégique du conflit :

Ignace Leverrier, ancien chiffreur de l’ambassade de France à Damas, démasqué depuis longtemps depuis Beyrouth et désigné sous le sobriquet d’Al Kazzaz pour ridiculiser son camouflage.

De son vrai nom, Pierre Vladimir Glassman, le blogueur du Monde signait sous le pseudonyme de la traduction française de son nom patronymique Leverrier pour Glassman, ce qui a donné en arabe « Al Kazzaz ».

Les Français s’imaginent être plus malin que les autres. (The British intelligence services did worse activities in Syria, but executed its criminal activities in secrecy)

Mieux : Trois anciens résidents français à Damas étaient aux avant postes de la guerre médiatique, faux nez de l’administration.

Outre Pierre Vladimir Glassman, l’ineffable François Burgat, ancien Directeur de l’Institut Français pour le Proche Orient, qui glanera le sobriquet de M. BURQA, en raison de ses œillères idéologiques ;

Enfin Jean Pierre Filiu, célèbre pour son « épectase sur le chemin de Damas », qui passera à la postérité pour avoir comparé la guerre de Syrie à la guerre d’Espagne, confondant les « Brigades Internationales » animée d’un idéal républicain, disposé à mourir pour défendre la République et l’instauration d’un Califat rétrograde par des mercenaires terroristes shootés au captagon, ignorant par là-même que « mourir pour Teruel faisait sens, s’ensauvager à Raqqa un contre sens ».

Golias : La Syrie a été le premier pays à reconnaître l’Indépendance du Donbass en Ukraine, pourquoi un tel un empressement ?

René Naba : Un empressement qui se présente comme une réponse du berger à la bergère.

La Syrie, emboîtant le pas à la Russie, son sauveur, a été en effet le premier pays à reconnaître l’indépendance de deux provinces séparatistes russophones d’Ukraine (province de Donetsk et de Lougansk), le 22 Février 2022.

Une décision qui apparaît comme une réplique lointaine à l’occupation de facto par les États Unis du Nord-est de la Syrie ; des encouragements des Américains à une sécession kurde de cette zone pétrolifère ;

Enfin à l’aménagement dans le secteur d’Idlib, sous contrôle de la Turquie, d’un rebut pour les jihadistes refoulés des autres provinces de Syrie, avec l’accord tacite de Washington.

La France, président en exercice de l’Union européenne, pour le 1er semestre 2022, a reçu de plein fouet ces deux camouflets diplomatiques (l’annexion du Donbass et sa reconnaissance par la Syrie), alors qu’elle battait en retraite au Nord-Mali, abandonnant en douceur son projet de création d’un État kurde dans la province de Raqqa, dans le Nord de la Syrie.

Le précédent président français de l’Union européenne, Nicolas Sarkozy, avait essuyé pareille déconvenue en Géorgie, le 8 Août 2008, avec l’annexion de l’Abkhazie et de l’Ossétie du sud.

L’humiliation est cuisante pour la France en ce que la reconnaissance du Donbass par la Syrie s’est doublée d’une visite du président Bachar Al Assad à Abou Dhabi, le 20 mars 2022, première visite du président syrien à un pays arabe depuis la guerre déclenchée par la coalition islamo-atlantiste contre son pays, il y a douze ans.

Une humiliation d’autant plus cuisante que cet Émirat est protégé par une base française, l’ennemie irréductible du syrien que la presse française qualifie de « Bachar » avec une désobligeance qui masque mal le dépit haineux d’un vaincu.

Épilogue de cette épreuve de force, l’hégémonie israélo-américaine sur le Moyen Orient n’est plus ce qu’elle était, ni la vigueur des contestataires à l’imperium atlantiste….

Une parfaite illustration de l’adage selon lequel la vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid.

Golias : Pourquoi tant de haine ?

René Naba : L’animosité réciproque entre la France et la Syrie remonte à la conquête de la Syrie et la bataille de Khan Maysalloune.

La trahison de la France lors des négociations Sykes Picot conduira le ministre syrien de la défense, Youssef Al Azmeh, en personne, à prendre les armes contre les Français pour la conjurer à Khan Maysaloun (1920), dans laquelle il périra ainsi que près de 400 des siens dans la bataille fondatrice de la conscience nationale syrienne.

Depuis lors la Syrie a tenu la dragée haute à la France s’opposant frontalement à toutes ses équipées en terre arabe.

La duplicité française et la voracité turque ont ainsi obéré la crédibilité de l’opposition syrienne de l’extérieur dans sa contestation du régime baasiste.

Alexandrette, au lendemain de la 1ère Guerre mondiale, a constitué la faille initiale, du fait français.

La riposte oblique de la Syrie à la France s’est faite en trois temps.

Un des plus célèbres non dit de la diplomatie syrienne, l’amputation du district d’Alexandrette, a constitué une blessure secrète qui a servi de moteur à la revendication nationaliste syrienne pendant une large partie du XXe siècle au point que Damas a longtemps refusé de constituer un groupe d’amitié France-Syrie à l’Assemblée du peuple syrien.

La Syrie aura l’occasion de rendre la monnaie de sa pièce à la France, dans une riposte oblique en trois temps :

1. La première fois, lors de la guerre d’indépendance de l’Algérie, précisément, dans le prolongement de l’hospitalité accordée au chef nationaliste algérien Abdel Kader Al Djazaïri. Le premier groupe de volontaires arabes à rallier la Révolution algérienne a été un groupe de baasistes syriens mus par un sentiment de solidarité pan-arabe, parmi lesquels figuraient Noureddine Atassi, futur président de la république, et, Youssef Al Zouayen, futur ministre des Affaires étrangères, qui trouveront d’ailleurs, tous les deux, asile en Algérie à leur éviction du pouvoir.

2. La deuxième fois, avec l’alliance de revers conclue entre la Syrie et l’Iran durant la guerre Irak-Iran de la décennie 1980, prenant en tenaille l’Irak soutenu par la France au point se hisser au rang de cobelligérant.

3. La troisième fois : Dernier et non le moindre de la riposte subliminale de la Syrie à la France aura été le fait d’avoir fait office de verrou arabe du Liban au grand dam de la France, et surtout de constituer la principale voie de ravitaillement stratégique du Hezbollah libanais, le cauchemar absolu d’Israël, de l’OTAN et des pétromonarchies réunis.

Au delà de la solidarité témoignée lors de la guerre d’indépendance de l’Algérie, la Syrie et l’Algérie sont les deux principaux pivots de la présence russo-chinoise en Méditerranée sur le flanc sud de l’OTAN.

L’axe Damas-Alger, aux deux extrémités de la Mer Méditerranée, constitue le centre de gravité pérenne du militantisme arabe pro-palestinien, depuis la défection de l’Égypte et sa cavalcade solitaire vers la paix avec Israël.

De surcroît, l’Algérie et la Syrie sont les deux pays arabes, – avec le Liban du fait de la présence du Hezbollah – à mener une politique étrangère qui préserve les intérêts à long terme du Monde arabe, et, à ce titre, partenaires privilégiés des grandes puissances contestataires à l’ordre hégémonique occidentale la Chine, La Russie, l’Iran, et, l’Afrique du Sud pour le continent noir.

Lors de la guerre de Syrie, pas un terroriste algérien ne s’est rendu depuis l’Algérie pour combattre la Syrie, de l’aveu d’un des opposants de première heure au régime baasiste.

L’affaire avait été fermement verrouillée par les appareils sécuritaires des deux pays.

Les rares islamistes algériens qui avaient combattu en Syrie sont des Algériens de la diaspora, tout comme ceux qui ont commis des actes terroristes dans les pays occidentaux sont des algériens titulaires d’une double nationalité que cela soit les Frères Kouachi (attentat de Charlie hebdo), Hedi Nemmouche (geôlier d’otages français dans le nord de la Syrie) ou même Mohamad Merah (Toulouse).

L’Algérie a effectué un retour remarquable sur la scène diplomatique internationale en obtenant, en tandem avec l’Afrique du Sud, la suspension d’Israël du statut d’observateur au sein de l’Union africaine, formant dans la foulée une task force avec l’Afrique du Sud, le Nigéria et l’Éthiopie pour prévenir des turbulences futures au sein de l’organisation africaine.

Golias : Quelles conclusions tirer-vous de cette décennie de guerre ?

René Naba : Au terme de séquence décennale, la démocratie n’a cessé de régresser dans le Monde arabe, entrant dans une ère de glaciation, de même que l’idée même de démocratie, du fait d’une triple imposture :

L’imposture des grandes démocraties occidentales,

L’imposture de l’idée même des révolutions arabes.

L’imposture d’une fraction importante des démocrates arabes, particulièrement les dissidents de la vieille garde : Abdel Halim Khaddam, un laquais qui mérite bien son nom, Mouncef Marzouki (Tunisie), Azmi Bishara (Palestine), Michel Kilo et Borhan Ghalioune (Syrie), enfin Walid Joumblatt (Liban).

Sans oublier Tawakol Karman, Prix Nobel de la Paix 2011, la plus grande escroquerie intellectuelle et morale du Printemps arabe.

Première femme arabe et deuxième femme musulmane (après Shirine Ebadi – Iran en 2003) à être nobélisée, la yéménite Tawakol Karman constitue une imposture ambulante.

Sœur de Safa Karman, journaliste à Al Jazeera, la chaîne transfrontière arabe du Qatar, chef de file de la contre révolution néo-islamiste dans le Monde arabe, cette activiste est en fait membre du Parti Al Islah, la branche yéménite de la confrérie des Frères musulmans et son ONG « Women Journalist Without Chains » émargeait sur le budget de la National Endowement for Democracy, la NED, fondée en 1983 par le président ultra-conservateur américain Ronald Reagan.

Un sous-marin de l’administration américaine en somme.

Une telle stratégie aberrante a débouché sur la régression de la démocratie dans le Monde arabe, la régression de l’idée même de démocratie, perçue désormais comme une machination de l’Occident pour perpétuer sa domination dans la zone.

Voire même une répulsion de l’Occident par les authentiques démocrates arabes. Un contre sens stratégique absolu.

Consternant est le nombre invraisemblable d’Arabes dont le cerveau a été virusé par un islam toxique au point de se comporter en zombies criminogènes, générant une islamophobie généralisée dans la sphère occidentale, desservant au premier chef la cause qu’ils sont supposés servir, la cause de l’Islam d’abord, la cause de la Palestine, ensuite, la cause des Arabes enfin. Dans l’histoire de l’humanité, il est difficile de recenser pareille déflagration mentale.

Golias : Votre bilan du djihadisme planétaire est accablant. Pourquoi une telle sévérité ?

René Naba : Sous produit de la Mondialisation, le djihadisme planétaire a généré un Islam anthropophage.

Le bilan de la double décennie du XXIe siècle est éloquent : Les six « sales guerres » de l’époque contemporaine sont situées dans la sphère de l’Organisation de la Conférence islamique (Syrie, Irak, Afghanistan, Somalie Yémen et Libye) générant 600 millions d’enfants musulmans pâtissant de la pauvreté, de la maladie, des privations et de l’absence d’éducation,

que 12 pays musulmans comptent le taux le plus élevé de mortalité infantile et que 60% des enfants n’accèdent pas à la scolarité dans 17 pays musulmans,

alors, qu’en contrechamps, les dépenses d’armement des pays arabes se sont élevés à 165 milliards de dollars … De quoi réhabiliter l’ensemble des pays arabes sinistrés par la guerre.

Sous produit de la Mondialisation, le djihadisme planétaire a généré un Islam anthropophage en ce que les victimes sont dans leur quasi-totalité des musulmans.

La psychiatrie arabe dispose là d’un terrain d’observation fertile. Elle devra un jour s’attacher prioritairement à interpréter cette singulière prédisposition des binationaux franco-syriens à se dévoyer pour une fonction supplétive de deux pays (France-Turquie) à l’origine du démembrement de leur partie d’origine, Alexandrette (Syrie) et de cautionner la destruction par leurs alliés du Mémorial édifié par les Arméniens en souvenir du génocide turc à Deir Ez Zor.

Les Arabes n’ont pas vocation à être des éternels harkis, la force supplétive des guerres d’autodestruction du Monde arabe et de sa prédation économique par le bloc atlantiste, ni à configurer leur pensée en fonction des besoins stratégiques de leurs prescripteurs occidentaux.

L’intérêt à long terme du Monde arabe n’est pas réductible à la satisfaction des besoins énergétiques de l’économie occidentale. En un mot, le Monde arabe n’a pas vocation à servir de défouloir à la pathologie belliciste occidentale.

Loin d’être un exercice jubilatoire de ma part, ce bilan se veut un cri d’alarme pour une prise de conscience en vue de bannir la morgue du débat public français et procéder à une analyse concrète d’une situation concrète afin de prévenir de nouveaux désastres.

La démocratie ne saurait être à sens unique, exclusivement dirigée contre les pays arabes à structure républicaine.




May 2022

Blog Stats

  • 1,494,360 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 820 other followers

%d bloggers like this: