Oh...and just to add....it is a FACT....that a person standing on the greater massed "PEANUT"....of two bulb like nuts connected together that comprise the asteroid....WILL WEIGH MORE....than the person standing on the lessor mass side of this type of asteroid. The FACT that a person has two different weights indicates that the Asteroid has two separate GRAVITY WELLS....or Centers of Gravity. You can play word games all you like but it does NOT change this fact. AboveAlpha
I'm sorry I keep mixing up the wording. I should be more clear about this: Gravity is a one dimensional EXPRESSION not a value. An expression is a like a math formula (look up the inverse square law for gravity). Put in your values and solve it. Then you have a one dimensional answer. Gravity as represented by the Inverse Square Law does use Newton's gravitational constant. Einstein was a great man, but with all respect to him, Einstein is dead! Quantum Mechanics is the future. There is still, as far as I know, some problems integrating Gravity into the Quantum model. I don't know more about this , ask AboveAlpha... Also I wouldn't count the universal expansion as a new take on gravity models. Just there is a large part of the Universe that is missing that's all we know right now. The missing part of the universe is helping the expansion and other things, but we can't detect it. It's a stubborn thing, even more so than Dark Matter. There is something else besides Dark Matter.
Just to let everyone know I am not AboveAlpha I am Sky his girlfriend. He left a few days ago and I am worried to death about him and I decided to look through some of his posts as I came to his home to feed his cat and decided to stay the night. Now my guy shares everything with me and this includes our dual interests in cosmology and physics. As far as Dark Energy is concerned which is the name given to the effect which is causing the ever increasing rate of acceleration of universal expansion that effect is not gravity of any manner of gravitational effect we know. Alpha has explained it to me this way. Gravity is in fact a one dimensional expression within our universal space and time and one dimensionality would be geometrically detailed as an infinitely small single point. He told me we know and we can visually see how gravity details such 1-d geometry by looking at a large celestial body. Large celestial bodies such as stars and planets are spherical and are only fatter around their equatorial line do to rotation and if not for rotation and the centripetal force created by this rotation stars and planets would basically all be perfect spheres. This natural ability to be spheres shows us how gravity and it's effect are 1-d in their nature. So how did I do for a girl? Sky
Good for a girl? Don't put yourself down Sky. I think you've done good for an "AboveAlpha" because I think that description of gravity and celestial bodies is clear and contains the end of a thought that AboveAlpha wasn't communicating well enough to me... Well, I think we have an expert Astronomer in the house, Yay! You know the existence of Dark Energy, not Dark Matter but Dark Energy, the next unknown part of the Universe. I used to study Astronomy myself, but not for years now, and I didn't even know about Dark Energy until a few weeks ago. I learned about it from a TV show: Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.
Alpha has quite a few telescopes and we both really enjoy going up to the observatory where the local college has a large telescope and a whole bunch of astronomy majors and local people including us bring their telescopes and set up in the field surrounding the observatory as well the Professor invites everyone inside and each week in the summer a few very distant cosmological celestial constructs are viewed. It is a lot of fun and anyone can go and Alpha usually brings his 5 inch reflector scope even though he has one of these new ones where you just push a button and it orients itself and then by pushing in a number as this scope is a computer and keeps time it will point toward anything you want to see. I personally like looking at M-31 and looking at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Horse head nebula in Orion and although my guy could bring the computerized scope he say's that is like cheating so he brings one he has to move and orient to find distant objects and I am getting good at it as well. I can't wait to tell him I told you something that helped you! Sky
How exactly do you express tidal forces (if you consider them forces, call them whatever you want) in a one dimensional expression?
Since no one replied I will post the answer. The electron orbital fields are negatively charged and thus when my finger tips seem to touch the keys when I type or my fist seems to come into contact with the desk when I slam it down it really never physically touches either the keys or the desk. That is because my finger tips and hand and the keys and desk are made of atoms which have electrons orbiting their atomic nucleus's and these electron fields being all negatively charged repel one another so no actual physical contact ever occurs. Cool huh? Sky
Newton gave us a very intuitive version of space and time. Here is space, which is the environment where things happen, and time moves relentlessly forward like a watch that never stops taking us moment after moment into the future in a completely uniform, absolute and unchanging way. With Special Relativity, Einstein said no. That's not right. He said space and time can change depending on how you move. He showed how if you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you, slows down. A Muon has a life time of a millionth of a second before it destructs. But send it through an accelerator, at near the speed of light, and it lives for a second, or longer. A million times longer than it otherwise would. If you put a person in an accelerator and sent them around at near the speed of light, instead of living 80 years, they might live 80 million years as we observed them, because time for them slows down. I'm not sure how gravity plays into this concept. The speed of light is constant. It's 671 million mph or 300 million meters per second. The relativity of simultaneity requires that motion, and speed must effect time. Or...to be precise, the rate at which time passes must be effected by motion. Simultaneity depends on your perspective. Clocks that are moving relative to each other must click off time differently. Imagine the simplest form of a clock. A light clock which is a box with a mirror on the top and the bottom, and a ball of light is set in motion bouncing from the top to the bottom in a constant repetitive cycle. There are no other moving parts. Conceptually, it's no different than any other clock, which means that any conclusion that we come to about the nature of time, that makes use of the light clock, as an intermediate part of the reasoning, that conclusion applies to any clock. Because this mechanism is so simple, it reveals how motion passage of time. If you have two of these clocks operating at exactly the same pulse, and set one in motion. As you are viewing it in motion from an external perspective, you are seeing the elongated trajectory of each pulse. If you are holding the clock and walking it from one place to another, from your perspective the light pulse is simply bouncing up and down, because from your view, you aren't moving. Those observing you are the ones that are moving. But from the observers perspective the ball of light bounces from top to bottom in an elongated path. It is taking the ball of light longer to complete its cycle then the light clock that is stationary. Therefore the light clock in motion is moving at a slower rate than the stationary clock, relative to the observer. The ball of light still bounces between the mirrors, but from the perspective of those of us observing, the path is longer compared to the stationary clock, from our perspective. If the path is longer, but the speed of light is constant, the "tic-tocs" happen at a slower rate. So time is elapsing slower on a moving clock. A very similar experiment was done using two atomic clocks, which were taken to an airport. One was left on the tarmac, while the other set to exactly the same time, was taken on a plane that flew around the world. When it arrived back at it's origin, it was significantly behind the stationary clock left on the tarmac. So because the speed of light is constant, when the trajectory is longer, the cycle takes longer to complete. The conclusion is that a clock in motion clicks off time at a slower rate. Speed is at the core of Special Relativity. If a car is traveling at 100 mph, it will take 1 hour to go 100 miles right? Speed = Distance/Duration = Space/Time The closer we get to the speed of light, we find space and time get weird. Speed only has relevance as it relates to some other object. Speed is a measure of space over time. So knowing that the speed of light is constant, and knowing that a clock in motion moves at a slower rate that a clock at rest...I'm curious as to how gravity plays into this? How are gravity and time related? Einstein had a different view of gravity than Newton did, which is how we explain the rapid expansion of the universe. Instead of pulling objects closer together, it's pushing objects farther apart.
Yes, Einstein is dead. So is Newton and he's been dead a lot longer. Einstein was no outsider to Quantum Mechanics. He actually wrote the first paper on it in 1905, so it's not like he was some critic that had no understanding of it. The paper he won the Nobel prize for on the photo electric effect, was viewed as the first, or perhaps second paper on Quantum Mechanics. One of the things he didn't like about it was its reliance on probabilities. His view was more in line with the Newtonian view that the world has definite features, even before you measure it. Quantum Mechanics insists that it only has definite features upon measurement. He once famously remarked; "Are you telling me that the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it?" That didn't make sense to him. The deeper problem he had was with something called entanglement. Quantum Mechanics introduced the fundamental level of probability built into it, and because of that probabilistic description of how things unfold, a fundamental level of uncertainty was injected into our understanding of microscopic reality. Einstein saw QM as an unruly child that he helped bring into being. He never accepted the idea that the world is based on probabilities. He believed that there was a single definite reality and you should be able to describe it completely and precisely. He once said, "we are not in the business of presenting odds, we are not "bookies", we are physicists." It's one thing to make predictions that you can test. It's another to look at the theory and really understand what it's telling you about reality. When a theory tells us that an electron can be here...or here...or here some percent of the time, you have to ask, does that mean that the electron IS at all of those places? And if it is at all of those places, why do I only find it in one or another location? One of the explanations is that if an electron can be here, and here, and here...then it IS in all of those locations, just in different universes. Well...of course. That must be it. So when you measure the position of an election, in one universe it's here, and in another it's over here, and in another its over here...parallel worlds emerging from the mathematics of QM. It certainly was at the time.
I don't do that. The only Tidal force I know of involves the water. And it's caused by the orbit of the Moon!!! If I were to sketch this up in a one dimensional expression it couldn't take into account the long term, stable orbit of the Moon. Instead, the only such one dimensional expression that I can think of, off hand, would feature the Moon and the Earth accelerating towards each other. It's been a while since I've seen the equation, but I think this is the one: Gm1m2/r^2 Where: G = Universal Gravitational Constant. m1 = mass of 1st body m2 = mass of 2nd body r^2 = radius squared, the length of distance, between the two bodies.
If Newton wasn't valid after Einstein explain to me why Einstein used Newton's gravity constant, throughout his formulas? Now you're right on one thing. Trying to decide the probability of gravity is a bug problem. It's what is holding us back from the next set of ideas... Rumors have it that Electrons are going into multiple states simultaneously, not just in parallel worlds, but also sometimes they go into multiple states simultaneously in the same world. I think it's really interesting and I'm hoping to one day find out more about this. But for now I don't have anything to show you about that.
Not exactly. Tidal forces are acting on you right now due to the Earth, they're just too small to notice because you are small and the gravitation is not strong enough. If you were near a black hole however, tidal forces would rip you apart (look up "spaghettification", a rather gruesome but valid description). Tidal forces are one, probably the only, real way to tell if you're in a gravitational field or in an accelerating reference frame. If you detect tidal forces, you're in a gravitational field. Tidal forces do cause ocean tides, of course, that's how they originally got their name. Here's a question: You are correct ocean tides are mainly caused by the Moon's gravitational field. The part of the Earth closest to the Moon experiences a high tide, which you might expect just using the (very) simplified inverse square law. Why then is there a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth? High tides are experienced every 12 hours, not every 24 as you might expect with the Earth's rotation (it's a bit longer than that because of the Moon's orbit). If it was simply due to an inverse square law, shouldn't the side furthest from the moon experience a low tide as all the water is pulled towards the Moon? To have a high tide on the opposite side of the Moon means water is being pushed away from the Moon. How can that happen with the simple one-dimensional inverse square law?
I don't know 10A. Maybe on the two opposite points, on the far sides of the Earth, both directly towards and opposite to the Moon, where both tides bulge outwards at the same time and the tides are highest, those points experience the most strong expression of Gravity, for their respective sides of the Earth sphere, from the gravitational effect of the Moon. I guess this would be one of the strange physical phenomena that I highly suspect but can't actually describe in an equation because I don't know the equation. Perhaps it's not so straight forward, but it's the next logical conclusion because the Tides obviously do bulge at opposite points on the Earth, every 12 hours, and the tidal waters don't all leak around the edges of the Earth to have a single high tide at the point closest to the Moon. Say, maybe it's one of those "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" things. Or maybe not. Why, who can say? Not I, but maybe someone else with more knowledge about Physics will come along and tell us.
I'm sure that before 1873 that's what they were saying about electricity and magnetism. The problem hasn't changed. There isn't some crazy math unknown to our minds - we just haven't cracked the puzzle yet. Think of it like the Moriarty to our Sherlock. Quantum mechanics threw us off Reichenbach Falls. We'll eventually come back though. We're the main character Point is, everyone thinks they're at the end of knowledge when stumped by a problem. That doesn't mean we actually are. Very unlikely. Physics is theoretical. When we became properly able to articulate quantum mechanics we didn't suddenly gain the ability to manipulate quantum entanglement. Folding space-time is mostly sci-fi nonsense. Maybe, maybe it's possible that wormholes exist and function in a way similar to that envisioned, but even in this case it's highly unlikely that they'd support anything of great mass (ie: humans) passing through them. Certainly not intact. Anyway, unifying QM and relativity wouldn't solve war, starvation, energy, or resource issues. We're already on the track to eliminating energy concerns through our current knowledge. Our planet has a relative abundance of deuterium, so if we can get fusion running at commercial levels we'll pretty much be set. We're not waiting for the grand unified theory to complete this, we're waiting on technology to catch up to our theoretical understanding. As for war, regardless of the state of technology, we'll always be in the state of nature. People have different ambitions. Where those ambitions conflict, people fight. Technology can only aid this to a point - it can make a man more efficient in seeking out his values. War is rarely efficient. But in the cases where it is an efficient means to his end, no amount of technology will change his mind. Resources - perhaps. The end goal is being able to change any material into any other material, but that's so far beyond our current status that it's not really worth discussing, even if we do get a unified theory. Let's chill our muffins for a moment here. We don't even know if there is a grand unified theory. We could be like the per-relativity consensus predicting breakthroughs in aether theory. Sometimes our predictions are wrong and we go in a completely different direction. In addition, gaining a new perspective doesn't suddenly make us Godlike. We saw that with relativity and QM - they propelled us forward quite a distance, but we're still fundamentally the same as we were 200 years ago. We can fly, we can make little screens which display color, we can fly to space. We didn't suddenly gain the ability to travel to the multiverse lol. Science is incremental. Ambitions will always conflict where humans interact. There is no way around this. Not even physicists... ehh, I'm done.
I already stated they are due to tidal forces, and you just about know the equation. You just have to move from this: to this: I'm not sure if you're familiar with vectors, but that is the vector form of Newton's Law of Gravitation. We have to use a vector because you can't solve this problem in one dimension. There's a bit more to the equation as well since you have to integrate (sum) all the mass particles in a vector form. We can model tidal forces in two dimensions. In one dimension (straight "down") think of the inverse square law when you're standing. There is an apparent force on your feet. There is a slightly different apparent force on your head because it is some length away from your feet, and therefore the apparent force decreases in accordance with the inverse square law. Again this difference is tiny for a human on Earth, but it has the effect of stretching you. Now we think about another dimension, we'll can call it a horizontal dimension but it's really the angle around the Earth. The apparent forces are pulling everything to the center of the Earth. If you stretch your arms out, the apparent force on your hands is ever so slightly in a different direction from each other, pointing inward towards the center of the Earth. If you keep your arms outstretched and point your fingers at your feet you get an exaggerated idea. The main component of that force will be vertical, pulling you down, but it will also have components that squeeze you together (again very small on the Earth). For a small body such as a human on the Earth, the tidal forces are insignificant. For large bodies such as the Earth and Moon, they are not insignificant. The tidal forces stretch the Earth in one direction and squeeze in the other. The stretched portion is high tide, on both sides of the Earth. The squeezed portion are the low tides. Tidal forces can be calculated using General Relativity, just the math is a more involved, but you still can't isolate it to one dimension.
Well...you certainly are entitled to your opinion and so am I. The way I look at it and the way I have been TRAINED to look at it is this....WAR has ALWAYS been about a group or persons desire to CONTROL PEOPLE....thus the accumulation of POWER. HOW...does a person or group obtain POWER? By CONTROLLING RESOURCES. Now regardless of whether a nation is a Dictatorship, Democratic Republic as the U.S. is....or Communist....and regardless of whether the Leadership of any Nation has been VOTED into a position of POWER or has seized such a position....the name of the game is CONTROL OF RESOURCES. History has shown that any dictatorship or empire will eventually fall as such systems have rampant corruption and no system built into their form of government for the PEOPLE to change what is going on. Systems such as the United States Democratic Republic have built in systems which allow for the people to change leadership and change laws and this basically allows it to be possible such a Democratic Republic to continue to exist as long as the people want it as every time such a Republic becomes too corrupt it is possible for the people to REMOVE AND CHANGE any leadership. Dictatorships, Empires and Communist Governments do not allow nor have existing such mechanisms of change built in to their Constitution or Charter. Now the United States is currently the world sole remaining Superpower...or Hyperpower as the Chinese are now calling us because of TWO THINGS....#1. The United States is BY FAR the worlds largest economy and worlds largest Manufacturer and worlds largest Importer but perhaps most important.....the United States is BY FAR the worlds largest grower of FOOD as the U.N. has reported that without U.S. Food AID it is possible over 1 Billion People would STARVE. As well the United States is also BY FAR the worlds largest donater of MEDICAL SUPPLIES.....INOCULATIONS and as example such U.S. programs of manufacturing and donating something as simple as MOSQUITO NETS which the U.S. donates in the Multiple Millions to African, South and Central American and Asian people to cover them while they sleep at night is a program responsible for saving the lives and preventing MALARIA in 100's of Millions of People. Thus because the U.S. Economy is SO LARGE and the U.S. Manufacturing base is MASSIVE this allows the U.S. Government as well as Private U.S. Citizen's Groups the WEALTH to donate much needed RESOURCES all over the world to people in need. #2. The U.S. Military being so massive allows the United States and especially the U.S. Navy to PROTECT AND CONTROL the flow of trade world wide. Thus these 2 things allow the United States to CONTROL the flow of RESOURCES and being able to do this on a WORLDWIDE LEVEL....the United States is capable of preventing large scale WARFARE from erupting. Without this massive U.S. Military any Tin Plated Dictator could easily CONTROL the flow of RESOURCES to a neighboring nation and such CONTROL will eventually lead to WAR. Now....IMAGINE....if we understood and developed a UFT...Unified Field Theory and YES...such a Theory MUST EXIST as we KNOW that all Matter and Atomic Particles of MASS are actually completely comprised of QUANTUM PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS OF ENERGY. Thus Matter and Energy are one in the same and interchangeable. Thus it is POSSIBLE with the use of QUANTUM COMPUTING and understanding a UFT....to convert Matter to Energy and Energy to Matter. Now...HOW does such a capability equal the END OF WAR? If we understood a UFT....and we ALREADY have existing 1000 Quibit Quantum Computers....we could take a CUP OF WATER and be capable of using the Hydrogen in that water and use it for LOW TEMP. FUSION and thus generate massive amounts of Energy. Just the Energy Generation alone would change the World but if we developed and understood a UFT....that would mean we could take that Energy generated by Fusion and also using Quantum Computation transform that energy INTO ANY FORM OF MATTER WE DESIRED. So right there we could solve numerous issues that result in the generation of WAR. If RESOURCES ARE ENDLESSLY ABUNDANT.....PEOPLE NEVER GO WITHOUT....thus without need....CONTROL CANNOT BE ACHIEVED.....if control is impossible....WAR IS IMPOSSIBLE. AboveAlpha
Doesn't the gravitational pull of a black hole warps time and space around it. A sun can only achieve a certain mass before it implodes onto itself pulling in everything around it including time and light.
Usually Black Holes form when Super Massive Red Giants reach a point where there is so little Hydrogen left within the star to fuse that outward Thermonuclear Reaction Force reaches a point less than the Gravitational Effect created by the remaining Helium and other Elements making up such a star. At that point the Super Massive Red Giant will collapse in on itself and such a collapse occurs toward a Geometric Center Point of Gravity....as Gravity is in fact an Expression of One Dimensionality. When the amount of matter collected at such a point exceeds the capability of Normal Space-Time to support it a SINGULARITY WILL OCCUR as the amount of mass surpasses a THRESHOLD AMOUNT that such Space-Time can support and a RIP within Space-Time occurs and a BLACK HOLE is formed. Not all stars can become Black Holes as our Sun is a Yellow Dwarf at the moment and even Billions of Years from now when most of the Hydrogen is fused into Helium our Sun will start expanding and it's Solar Radius may very well reach out past Mars. At the point Thermonuclear Reaction is but a tiny percentage to what it once was the radius of the red giant sun will be 100 times what it is now, lying just beyond the Earth's orbit, so the Earth will plunge into the core of the red giant sun and be vaporized. At some point after this, the core will become hot enough to cause the helium to fuse into carbon. When the helium fuel has exhausted, the core will expand and cool. The upper layers will expand and eject material. Finally, the core will cool into a white dwarf. Eventually, it will further cool into a nearly invisible black dwarf. This entire process will take a few billion years. The reason WHY a Sun expands as it fuses Hydrogen into Helium is because as Fusion occurs mass is lost as some Atomic Particles in the Hydrogen Atoms when fused into Helium are converted or broken down into the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that comprise them and this break down and conversion gives us LIGHT, HEAT, RADIO WAVES and many other things in the EM Spectrum. Our Sun is about 6% LARGER in Diameter now than it was 4.5 Billion Years ago when the Earth was formed as the more Matter our Sun had back then the greater the Gravitational Effect and thus the smaller the Sun's diameter. Billion's of years from now a great amount of mass will have been lost and spent as Fuel in the Sun as it converts that Hydrogen to Helium and Light, Heat, Radio...etc....and as our Sun's mass becomes less our Sun's diameter becomes greater due to lower Gravitational effect. AboveAlpha
People will fight over any zero-sum game. Resources are just one. Whenever we can't both fulfill our ambitions we will fight. The state of nature is permanent and irreparable. Everyone has different ambitions, the state doesn't change that. It just centralizes power. Picture a society completely devoid of all government. Just people and their ambitions. Maybe one man accumulates more power than the rest, and is able to fulfill any of his ambitions. This man = the state. The only difference is the set of ambitions the state holds vs. what the man holds. Both achieved their position as hegemon through power and force, pure and simple. You might think that the state's ambitions (justice, welfare, etc) are noble, but that's not really relevant. What you really mean is that you share the state's ambitions. That's fair enough, but don't think for a second that you're any better than that man. This is more clear in South America, Africa, and the Middle East, where governments don't have absolute, unchallengeable power like they do here in the West. [hr][/hr] The point is, you can't escape survival of the fittest. Even with government, ambitions war with each other. Government was merely the victor. I did physics at university, I see what you're saying, but it's just horribly impractical. Fusing atoms is impossibly difficult and will remain so even if we find a grand unified theory (if one even exists). It's quite possible that we're on the wrong track entirely. Rule 1 of science: always assume you're wrong. Physics especially. As for all this eliminating war - imo you have too narrow a view of what causes war. Think more broadly - resources aren't the only thing people are motivated by. Also, rather than war, picture conflict generally. Limiting conflict to that between states is easy. In a world ruled by Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan there would be no war, but that's of little consequence. We're all ultimately individuals, the state is comprised of individuals. Consequently, it makes sense to think of conflict on an individual level, ie: as coercion. Coercion will never disappear. It only requires two things: conflicting ambitions, and power. People will always have conflicting ambitions, and they'll always have the power to fulfill those ambitions (at least some of them). Therefore, coercion and conflict will always exist. Utopia is a myth.
I will respond to the war issue first. I agree that there will ALWAYS be people who desire POWER and CONTROL of others....but what I am talking about is not about how understanding and using the UFT will make such people no longer exist. What I am saying is that understanding and using the UFT will allow Humanity to be FREE of such people. Think about this. If a group of people want for nothing and are happy in that they can spend their time in the pursuit of bettering themselves or not or party or not and have everything they would ever need......and THEN....some Power Hungry person comes along and tries to convince these people they should stop enjoying their lives and follow him into a senseless battle....what do you think such people would say? Let's see....stay here and enjoy a beer and BBQ and do what I want when I want...OR....go start a WAR with you and fight and die? HMMMM....I will take BEER! AboveAlpha
Stop thinking in terms of war and start thinking in terms of the use of force generally. War is not any better or worse, they're the same thing - war is just collectivized.
Now as far as Nature and survival of the fittest we are RIGHT NOW capable of Genetically Modifying the Human Genome to be Disease Resistant, Extend Life by Hundreds of Years and eventually IF WE LAST THAT LONG...things like Hunger and Starvation, Disease and Poverty, Money and Nationalism will become a thing of the past. Humanity has been moving toward this for eons and it is an eventuality unless Earth is destroyed by an Asteroid but even that we are capable of changing or perhaps Humanity could be wiped out by War and Disease or Solar or Cosmic Radiation...etc. One thing is certain if we do last long enough we will colonize other planets....and that would not only solve population issues but also spread out Humanity thus increasing species continuation. It's not like this is going to happen over night but when one thinks about it just 120 years ago Humanity was using Horse and Buggy to get around. Imagine what things will be like in just 220 years from now....or 500....or 1000? AboveAlpha
The use of force can only effect Humanity if a number of people are involved. A single person is not capable of being or developing an army. A single person could use a weapon of mass destruction....but even that is localized. AboveAlpha
I'm not interested in humanity except as the sum of individuals. Individuals are all that exists. The state is a manipulation of individuals, it's not its own thing. War is just lots of people initiating force rather than just a few. The distinction is arbitrary.
