Israel

Now Israel is facing two great conflicts, the conflict with the Palestinians and the brewing conflict with Iran over whether or or not the Holocaust actually took place. In the latter conflict Israel has the support of European countries as well as other countries around the globe.
The Conflict with Palestine has been wearing on for many years now and claimed even more lives. Many countries have spoken against this conflict and that Israel 'would not be doing enough to settle the conflict' and some even suspect that Israel's ambitions could be compared to those of Austria in 1914 when Austria tried to destroy Serbia to get rid of a threat. If any of those allegations are correct is hard to say since the conflict has been wearing on for many years. Recently South African Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu wanted to shed some light into this issue by starting a 'fact' finding search in Israel as to why the conflict with Palestine began. Israel declined his request, which does put Israel in a disadvantageous position in International relations. Further the UN has been criticizing the Israeli human rights abuses by shelling the Gaza Strip.

Articles relating to this event:
Israel 'blocks Tutu Gaza mission' (BBC)
Israel 'turns down' Tutu mission (Al Jazeera)

Further the conference in Iran concerning the Holocaust or rather it's concern with the non-existence of it. Has caused great concern and many have spoken out against the conference as well as questioned how anyone could ever question that event. Which cost millions of lives which further was also well documented. The survivors which were able to tell the tales where then once more support the events actual occurrence further one has to remember that the facilities speak for them self. Labor and concentration camps by the way they were constructed clearly speak for them self. This then again begs the question why would anyone doubt the events actual occurrence. The participants of this conference are among others people that have been convicted for certain related crimes in France and Germany.
Here is a link to another article
Iran defends Holocaust conference (BBC)

Nanotechnology nat all that new?

Nanotechnology is the newest answer to the need for strong materials that are light. The theory of the Space-lift which would lead to a Space station can only be realized with the help of Nanotechnology. Now Nanotechnology is considered as high-end technology it was produced for the first time 1991 (very small amount by accident), the interesting thing is that a different technology that is thought to be lost. The Damaszener steel which was known for its strong properties,it was more durable, sharper and more resilient any other steel, even compared to the alloys known to us today. Those two technologies do not seem to be connected, one being todays high-end technology while the other was lost three hundred years ago.
Damaszener steel is created wit the help of an very complicated process which nobody managed to produce Damaszener since. The scientists are not quite certain how it was produced. Recently a group scientists analyzed a Damaszener knife, while the group was analyzing the knife they noticed something very shocking, which was that the knife was reinforced with Nanotubes which make the knife very stable and sharp. Those Nanotubes actually have the same diameter as the Nanotubes have today, which 0.34 Nanometer. The last Damaszener knifes and swords were produced about three hundred years ago.

Die Nanotechnik aus dem Orient

Climat change...

I found a most interesting graph which shows, how the world temperature, further it shows how the temperature will develop if it continues to develop in the same as it currently is.

Our Warming World

History...?

It seems most interesting that we assume that all our technology and knowledge of philosophy, the world as well as the what happens. Has developed in the time since Jesus or even only the since the 1500 or 1600's. Now first of all we lost a great deal of knowledge after Christianity lost a great deal of knowledge due to book burnings or the simple ignoring of 'heathens' something that often happened over the course of history. The number zero was blasphemy in the eyes of the Christian church until the until the ealry 1800's (accounts may vary). The Romans used water supply and disposal that was beyond the ability of the Europeans of the until the mid-1800's since the greatest part of the European architecture was based on the trial and error system the dome in cologne for example partially collapsed several times while under construction due to mistakes that were well known to the preceding empires. The Chinese were far beyond anything that their European counter parts could offer in medicine, agricultural productivity and philosophy when they met each other. In fact many developments that were necessary for the European conquest came from China, like the compass. Now why is it that we often lack the understanding that we lost a great deal of knowledge during conquests and religious battles that we had to rediscover or find again, besides today's Math is based on a great deal of Greek theories, which were perceived thousands of years ago.
Why is it that some people still do not know or underestimate how dependent we are on the knowledge perceived long ago.
The same basic rule is true for religious account of the creation of the world, they often contain some event that actually happened maybe on a smaller proportion than displayed in the story but none the less.

Civilization?

Civilization

Definition¹: A society is a Civilization if it has, culture (arts, language written and spoken), a written law code, must be non-nomadic (settled in towns and cities), must have agriculture, the distribution of technology (tools), centralized political power, religion and some sort of priesthood.

The term “civilization” implies one society being superior to another that is considered primitive and/or less socially developed. The concept of civilization appears to have been made to fit specifically the western nations. The Europeans were able to justify the destruction of many societies between (470 B.C. until late 1900's) that managed to coexist with their environment, that were peaceful and sometimes nomadic. All Indian tribes that were encountered in North America were automatically labeled as savages and thus considered 'inferior'. This further implied that any society that is inferior can be destroyed because 'inferiority' makes them less important than the 'superior' society. An 'inferior' society is at risk of being attacked attacked by a superior military force. The brutal and disrespecting manner which the 'superior' societies employ gives the less militarily advanced one no, or only a very slim chance of surviving intact. It is curious that the definition of Civilization does not imply respect other cultures, acceptance of other religions and humanitarianism. Is a civilization not supposed to be a highly developed society? It seems as if the concept of civilization includes only societies that are imperialistic and, for the greater part, European in origin. The Mongol empire for example was not accepted into the fraternity of “civilizations”. This may be because they showed the world that there is only one thing required of a society to become a civilization within a few decades which is a strong will and a strong army. The Europeans conquered by the means of brute force which is surprisingly similar to the way the Mongols those 'Barbarians' did it.
If we follow the model of a civilization which Oswald Spengler presented² in his book “Der Untergang des Abendlandes” than the Mongol Empire lived through the spring, summer, and fall in less than a century. After which the empire broke apart in many smaller nations. Spengler as well distinguishes between culture and civilization, the former growing inward inside a society while a civilization is outward growing. This outward growing presents itself inform of conquests³, while the inward growing took form in cultural growth⁴. The argument presented by Arnold Toynbee was that civilizations needed challenges, that if the challenge was insufficient than this civilization would stagnate while if it was too great than it would be crushed. But both authors arguments would imply that the Mongol Empire was a civilization. Even the controversial Samuel Huntington with his book “The Clash of Civilizations” considered the Mongol Empire a civilization. He argued that every region with different religious interests would automatically become it own independent civilization. Now the question is why is it that the term civilization is only applied if it seems fit for the Europeans?
All three authors have their own concept of what civilization is, all their definitions have only one common point which is that civilizations reach something of a critical point when changes have to come but the power elite is holding on to the power it managed to gain. This is where the Mongol empire differs from the European, the Mongol Empire went silently while European Empires never did, they went with civil wars, which always caused many problems.
Not one of these authors as acclaimed and controversial as they might be have written what might happen at this point. Huntington seemed to think that if every region was 'westernized' that than the world would be come peaceful.

_______________________________________________________

1Sources Meyers Neues Lexikon and Wikipedia.org

2 Spring: Intuition, powerful cultural creation from awakening souls, unity and abundance. Religion: Birth of a grand myth signifying a new conception of God. Fear and longing for the world. Earliest metaphysical organization of the world. High scholasticism.

Art: Religious art considered as an integrated part of religious devotion. Gothic cathedrals, Doric temples. Politics: Feudalism, warrior aristocracies.

Summer: Maturing consciousness. Earliest urban-civil socity and critical thought.

Religion: Reformation: revolt of the religious moderates against the early religion. Beginnings of a purely philosophical movement. Contrasting idealistic and realistic systems. Mathematical breakthroughs leading to a new conception of the world. Rationalism. The depletion of mysticism from religion.

Art:

Politics: Absolutist states. Conflicts between aristocracy and monarchy. The political centre shifts from castles and estates to the cities.

Fall: Urban rise. High point of disciplined organizational strength.

• Religion: Faith in the omnipotence of rationality. Cult of Nature. The height of mathematical thought. The last idealists. Theories of knowledge and logic.
• Art:
• Politics: Struggles between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Revolutions. Napoleonism.

Winter: Coming fissure in the world-urban civilization. Exhaustion of mental organization strength. Irreligiousness rises.

• Religion: Materialism: Cults of science, utility, and luck. Ethical-social ideals: philosophy without mathematics, scepticism. The last mathematical thinkers. Decline of abstract thinkers, and the rise of specialized academic philosophy. Spread of the last ideas.
• Art: End of symbolic art. All art becomes meaningless subjects of fashion.
• Politics: Democracy, the rule of the rich, followed by caesarism and bureaucracy.

3As seen in the Roman (470B.C.-2006A.D.), Mongol(1211A.D.-1420's), British (1588 A.D.-1945A.D.), Japanese (1904A.D.- 1945A.D.) Empires

4The best examples for that would be the Greeks before being conquered by the Romans, the Japanese before the contact with the European powers which caused a stagnation and later the fall of the Samurai which allowed the Nationalists to move in.

The Bibliography can be found under comments...

The Electrical Car

The electric car a success that failed

The first electric engine was developed in 1830 this paved the way for the electric car developed by Thomas Davenport. (American)
The first electric car was developed by Robert Anderson of Scotland between 1832 and 1839 (no exact date is known) this car was a carriage with an electric engine.
The next one was in 1835 by Professor Stratingh of Groningen, Holland and his assistant Christopher Becker (this one was only a model). Practical and more successful electrical cars were invented by both Thomas Davenport (American) and Robert Davidson (Scottish) in 1842, both operated with non-rechargeable batteries. This flaw could be changed in 1859 when the first rechargeable battery was invented by Gaston Plante. (French) The rechargeable battery or second battery at that time was improved around 1880 by Camille Faure. (French)
France and Britain were the first nations to support widespread development of electric vehicles, in the late 1800's. In 1899, a Belgian ,named Camille Jenatzy, built a electric racing car called “La Jamais Contente” this vehicle set a new world record in speed (68.8 mph) and as well broke the 100km/h barrier.
The Americans noticed the electrical car in 1895, this became noticeable in 1897 when a fleet of New York taxis built by Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia was put into action.
(This taxi fleet was 100% electrical and rechargeable.)
1900 cars were available with steam engine, electrical, and gasoline, this was the as well the high time for the electrical car in America. The electrical car outsold all other types at this point and had many advantages. The distance record for electrical cars was set by BGS which car could drive 180 miles on a single charge.
They did not have the vibrations the others had, nor did they smell or produced noise associated with gasoline cars. Changing gears was not necessary (gasoline cars), the steam car did not need a gear shift either but it took up to 45 minutes to start-up (on a cold morning). The steam car as well did not have the range the electrical car offered with a single charge, the only good streets at this time were in cities limiting car travel even further.
In 1902 the Wood's Phaeton was little more than a electrical horse carriage but it had a range of 18 miles and a top speed of 14 mph (prize 2000$). Later in 1916 Woods invented a hybrid car that had a combustion engine as well as a electrical.
Electrical cars ranged from 1000$ to 3000$ by 1910, they also enjoyed success in the 1920's the production peaked in 1912.
Reasons for decline: Better street systems created the need for long-range vehicles, the discovery of crude oil in Texas made oil cheaper, the invention of the electrical starter made
the hand crank unnecessary, the mass production of internal combustion engine vehicles by Henry Ford made these vehicles available and affordable.
The electrical car had almost entirely disappeared by 1935.
1960 GM began working on Electovair, a converted Corvair and Ford began development of their sodium-sulfur based battery but neither managed to financially justify the costs to push the technology.
Boyertown Auto Body Works jointly formed the Battronic Truck Company with Smith Delivery Vehicles Ltd., of England and the Exide Devision of the Electric Battery Company. The first Battronic electric truck was delivered in 1964 its top speed was 25mph and the range was 62 miles under a payload of 2,500 pounds.
Battronic worked with General Electric from 1973 to 1983 to produce 175 utility vans, Battronic also developed and produced about 20 passenger buses in the mid 1970's.
In 1975, the United States Postal Service purchased 350 electric delivery vans from the American Motor Company to be used in a test program. These vans had a range of 40 miles at a speed of 40 miles even though they could reach 50 miles.
The electric car has not regained its old glory yet even though it is used more and more especially in services as, taxis, buses, postal services and private users.
The electric engine has always been the most efficient and cleanest, (depending on source of electricity) the main weakness of the electrical car always has been range.

What is the meaning of Paladin?

This question is one I have been asked for quiet sometime now which is why I' m now finally answering it.
The word 'Paladin' derived from the latin word 'palatinus' which means "Attached to the Palace".
Paladins have two nations in which they supported (or rather the supposed founding farther of both) these nations were France and Germany. Charles the great is supposedly the king (later emperor) that originally supported the Paladins and swore Roland (a very renowned Paladin Hero). Charles the great became Emperor Augustus in Rome on Christmas Day 800 A.D. by Pope Leo III and is therefore regarded as founder of the HolyRoman Empire.
The stories of Paladins rivaled the tales of King Arthur and his Round Table, but they seemed to have lost their ground over the course of time. They were always displayed as warriors that would not give ground to the enemy, sadly those enemies in those times were religious.
Today paladins are connected with vailent-hero(s) and/or particular loyal companion(s), they were known to right the wrong and defend the helpless and oppressed.
Most people now know paladins only from movies, games (PC, Console and Roleplay).
In these they are usually represented as warriors of god...

I personally see define Paladins as follows: A paladin supports anyone who is in need of help. A paladin is willing to follow strict ideals, does not waver from these ideals even if that leads to danger for the paladin.