Subject: Re: Einstein's Constant
From: James.Steigelmann@capncc01.ssw.abbott.com (Jim Steigelmann)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 16:07:56 GMT
In article <32DB0209.78D2@quadrant.net>, bfielder@quadrant.net says...
>
>Excuse me, I was merely waxing philosophical.
>
>For the record though, I tried to define a physical "constant" as a
>"number" which cannot be represented as a real number in any integer
>based counting system, and which relates any number of dimensions to an
>additional one.
Why are you excluding all "real" numbers from your definition of a constant?
>
>I was not quite clear in my first posting, but I still feel that any
>numerical system which uses "pi" or "e" as "one" will not relate to well
>with everyday experience.
>
>Nor do I think that any numerical system which uses "e" as "one" will
>find that either "pi" or "c" will end up being integers in that system.
Reminds me of the HS geometry test, where the question was,
"What is Pi R squared?", and one student answered, "A pop-tart". :)
>
>(Mind you, if anyone has come up with one, I would love to hear about
>it.)
>
>I just find it intriguing that all of the most important nos. in any
>system end up being irrational.
What can I say - we live in an irrational universe! ;)
--
---------------
Jim Steigelmann
----------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the
opinions of my employer, my boss, the state of Illinois,
the government of the United States of America, or of the
world in general...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: Anthony Potts
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:11:50 GMT
On 14 Jan 1997, Jeff Candy wrote:
> a very tough job to be a "good" trader. A good quant. will make
> about 500,000 US per year. Enough to see you through the stress,
> chain-smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and heart disease to come?
The thing is, though, that it's the good ones who don't get stressed, and
don't get ill. If you are not sitting on a vulnerable position, crapping
yourself about covering your risk, or clawing back last weeks losses,
things aren't too bad.
All the traders I know seem to be pretty laid back about the whole thing.
Of course, they could just be hiding it well, but it doesn't seem to be
that way.
>
> After a relatively low threshold (say, well below 100,000 US per
> year) more money has only a weak influence on happiness. I'm
> sure lots of traders would pay a fortune to have a nice physique,
> or to be as happy as the surfer they see on rare occasion at the
> beach.
>
Again, things are not too bad. One of the traders I know runs the five
miles to work every day, a few others go immediately to the gym after
work, and put in an hour before they go home.
Of course, this is not always the case. Just about every member of my old
boxing club has now moved on to the city, and they have certainly changed
shape from their competitive days. The thing is, though, that they are
planning to retire before they get old, and so are willing to put up with
whatever it takes through the ten or twelve years that they are working.
I hope that I am able to avoid getting stressed or losing my shape. It all
depends, of course, on whether I have got what it takes to rise above the
other traders. Only time will tell.
Anthony Potts
CERN, Geneva
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: bonus@algonet.se (Bjorn Danielsson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:37:48 +0100
Ken Fischer wrote:
> Bjorn Danielsson (bonus@algonet.se) wrote:
(snip)
> : If I plug in the numbers for the sun: 2.0E30 kg, and the sun radius ==
> : perihelion distance 7.0E8 m, and the speed 3.0E8 m/s for a probe entering
> : the solar system, then Newton's theory (giving a hyperbolical path) will
> : produce an angle of 0.872 arc-seconds according to my calculations.
> : This is about half of 1.75.
>
> Good calculating, that is about what Einstein wrote
> in the 1911 paper, 0.83 seconds of arc for the distance from
> the Sun that he used.
> It isn't a real complex equation after he shows how
> it is done, but he was good at making complicated things
> appear simple.
I used the newtonian formula for orbits: r = r0/(1 + e cos theta).
The only difficulty was to calculate the rather complicated expressions
for "r0" and "e" (eccentricity), given only asymptotic speed and perihelion
distance. I made no assumptions about invariant light speed, but the speed
increase in this model is very small anyway.
> If you are interested, it would be worthwhile to
> get the Dover paperback with both papers, plus others,
> for less than $10 US, titled "The Principle of Relativity"
> by Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski and Weyl.
Thanks for the pointer.
> : In the newtonian model the "probe"
> : (the photons) will gain speed as the perihelion is approached, but
> : according to relativity the energy increase is manifested as blue-shift,
> : not a change in speed. So the angular deflection of the photons will be
> : affected more by the gravitational acceleration than what the newtonian
> : theory predicts.
>
> No, the path of the light being bent is not the correct
> way to view the problem. Think of the Divergent Matter model,
> where the light travels in a straight line, and in the underlying
> physics, in addition to the acceleration of the surface of the
> Sun, there is a velocity component (in GR maybe momentum would
> be a better term).
But the beam of light is really bent, since it's angle is changed.
Consider this thought experiment: space is empty except for the sun,
a powerful laser, and me. Both I and the laser are at very great
distance from the sun, say several hundred thousand light-years.
Without the sun, the laser beam would have a certain incoming
angle in my region of space, but with the sun where it is, the
incoming angle is different. Even in GR, where the path of the
laser beam is at all times and places a geodesic, there is a
real bending effect as seen from the faraway observer.
> Even though Einstein seems to have taken a different
> direction, from the Einstein Principle of Equivalence to
> curved spacetime, he still expressed thought processes that
> related to the equivalence of acceleration to gravity, but
> a more complex geometry than a simple on dimensional acceleration
> is involved.
> This should be apparent, due to the fact that all
> acceleration does is increase velocity, even though this
> is the confusing part to anyone who has always thought
> in the terms of classical physics.
Velocity is both magnitude (speed) and direction. Acceleration
can change only one (speed change) or only the other (rotation),
or a little of both. I think Divergent Matter is an attractive
idea, but it needs to explain rotation and not only speed change.
I still can't see how this can be done without introducing some
new element into the theory.
> I am afraid I am not qualified to really approach
> the problem mathematically, and the aspect of time dilation
> is especially distressing to me now, because I am a mechanic
> (or mechanicist), and if I don't know how the machine works,
> I am not happy.
> After 51 years of study, I am finally beginning to
> understand the workings of the Divergent Matter model, and
> I am amazed at how much it helps me approach problems in
> General Relativity.
> But there are lots of people who understand
> General Relativity well, and I need to try to improve and
> rewrite Divergent Matter and bring it up to date.
> For it to have value, it must clearly describe
> the same results as General Relativity, and both the theory
> and the model will benefit.
Agreed. Myself, I am only a layman who likes to play with math I
learned many years ago, but my need to understand how the universe
works is deep and serious.
--
Bjorn Danielsson
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus
e
x
t
r
a
l
i
n
e
s
Subject: Re: Help me with Newton's law F=ma
From: mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Matt Feinstein)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:37:04 GMT
orie0064@sable.ox.ac.uk wrote:
>I think F=ma is not so much a law as a definition.
>The real laws of newton were that:
>
>1) If a body is not disturbed, it will stay where it is or move forever
>with constant velocity
>
>2) The conservation of momentum: that every body has a quantity called
>mass, such that in every collision,
>
>m1v1+m2v2 will stay constant throughtout.
>
>From 2) one can define momentum & hence force.
>--
>GT
>--
>http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0064
No, no, no. This may get me into an argument. but--
F = ma is -not- a definition of force. It is -not- an identtity, it
is a -law of motion-. It is a second-order differential equation that
relates the motion (i.e., kinematics) of a particle to the force
(i.e., dynamics) acting on the particle.
In fact, force is, from the standpoint of logic-and-axiomatics, an
undefined concept in classical mechanics. This is not to say that we
don't know what force is; there are a variety of classical 'force
laws' such as the elementary laws of gravitational force and the
electromagnetic Lorentz force, the not-so-elementary force laws for
frictional, pressure, and viscous forces, as well as (my favorite) the
fictional coriolis force.
Matt Feinstein
mfein@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Subject: PH.D.s are useless
From: varange@crl.com (Troy Varange)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 09:02:05 -0800
> > > Oh, the joys of American anti-intellectualism. It's been part of
> > > American culture that the "common man", with little training but
American culture and every other European culture.
> > > wads of common sense, will go further than someone with advanced
> > > training. While this _might_ have been slightly true back when
> > > we were mostly farmers, it certainly doesn't hold in an advanced
> > > industrial society.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > Microsoft Bill Gates didn't have a degree did he?
>
> A person who seeks to aquire a PH.D. has that motivation.
> For people who aspire wealth, a PH.D. is not necessary.
> One has to have the motivation to take big risks in starting
> their own business. Most people I know that are on their
> second majors in college are blindly following the path
> laid before them by their parents'. Go to college, get a
> PH.D. and you will be successful!! But those who aspire
> to be self employed have the guts to risk, suffer failure,
> and end up successful enough to hire degree holders to be
> their lawyers, accountants, financial advisers......get
> the picture?? It was infinitly easier to go to college
> and get good grades, But it did not compare to the stress,
> risk, and enormous amount of motiviation required to start
> a small business!
Only 0.1% of the American populace holds PHDs; what proof is
there that they are intellectually superior to the commoners?
When you consider what horrors PHD bearers have inflicted on
society, can the good people be blamed for desiring leaders
that are free of PHDs?
--
Cheers!
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 18:36:43 GMT
In article <32DB1BC2.639F@concentric.net>,
>A person who seeks to aquire a PH.D. has that motivation. For people
>who aspire wealth, a PH.D. is not necessary. One has to have the
>motivation to take big risks in starting their own business. Most
>people I know that are on their second majors in college are blindly
>following the path laid before them by their parents'. Go to college,
>get a PH.D. and you will be successful!!
I think that much of the new wealth in current growth areas
of the economy wouldn't exist were it now for PhDs, the academic system
and govermental support of R&D.; Technologies like OOP, The Internet,
and GUI interfacing would not have existed if they were to be developed
solely on the short-term thinking of the average businessman in a large
or small company. All of these technologies had to be pioneered first
by eggheads in research environments protected from the whims of the
market, quarterly reports or investors. Much of what is successful
business is on the heels of proven technologies. The U.S. needs to be
a leader in new technology development to remain competative in
world markets. This absolutely depends on a strong academic and govermnet
funded R&D; institutions. We cannot depend on private companies to take
the risks associated with long-term technology development for which
they are risk adverse.
> But those who aspire to be
>self employed have the guts to risk, suffer failure, and end up
>successful enough to hire degree holders to be their lawyers,
>accountants, financial advisers......get the picture??
Yes, I get the picture, companies have discovered a way to
push risk out the door in the guize of "opportunity" for outsourced
skills. Individuals are being turned into entrapaneurs whether they
want to or not. This is the main impact of computers and high-tech on
the labor market. It allows large organizations to slim down, reap
the benefits of their position while reducing labor costs and risk.
This is a revolutionary change that will have grave political and
social consequences, I think. People are discovering that the
private sector not only doesn't make promises, or can't keep
any that it may have made in the past, but that it depreciates
their skills and worth. They will react badly when the realization
hits of who really benefited from the massive changes taking place.
It wasn't the majority of people. The income distribution changes
in the U.S. in the past 20 years is evidance that so-called
free market economics benefited a small minority and that it leads
to winner-take-all processes that disadvantage many more then it
benefits. It is the power of timly access to information and the
flow of information that causes this.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: bonus@algonet.se (Bjorn Danielsson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:37:52 +0100
Ken Fischer wrote:
(snip)
> My opinion is that acceleration does one thing,
> acceleration changes velocity, and that is the definition
> of acceleration = "rate of change of velocity".
> But how can different velocities cause different
> time flows (seconds being longer with greater velocity)?
I think it depends on how you define "time", or rather how you
define the rate of time flow.
My favourite example is a clock made out of a flashlight, a mirror,
and a photodetector:
/ |
Flashlight | |
\ |
| Mirror
] |
Photodetector ] |
] |
<------- distance "d" ------>
The flashlight sends out a light pulse, and a clock tick is defined by
when the light comes back to the photodetector. The clock period is 2d/c
since 2d is the distance travelled by the light. (d is much larger than
the distance between flashlight and detector)
If we watch another similar clock that is moving with speed "v" in a
direction perpendicular to the line that defines the distance "d",
we will see the light pulse moving in a zig-zag fashion. In that clock
the total distance travelled by the light pulse will be longer than 2d.
Therefore the clock period will be longer too.
Using Pythagoras theorem and simplifying, we get (2d/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
If all physical processes are affected by motion the same way as this
simple clock, then time itself will seem to have slowed down as seen
from an outside observer. But within the rest frame of the clock, no
slowing down of anything or any other special effects are noticed.
This is the "transversal" relativity effect. The "longitudinal" effect
can be shown in the same way, but with motion in the direction of the
beam of light. The longitudinal effect causes length contraction and
disagreement on the synchronization of clocks along the longitudinal
axis. To see how the original clock slows down as observed from the
second clock, we need to take both the transversal and the longitudinal
effects into account. Then the whole situation becomes symmetric, and
this is why it is impossible to claim that one observer's definition of
time or space is more "real" than another's.
Well, that's my view of things. Followups to sci.physics.relativity.
--
Bjorn Danielsson
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:55:27
In article <32DB1BC2.639F@concentric.net> April writes:
>>
>> In article <5bdu4f$agl@interport.net>
>> cjc@interport.net (Cheng-Jih Chen) writes:
>>
>> >
>> > Oh, the joys of American anti-intellectualism. It's been part of
>> > American culture that the "common man", with little training but
>> > wads of common sense, will go further than someone with advanced
>> > training. While this _might_ have been slightly true back when
>> > we were mostly farmers, it certainly doesn't hold in an advanced
>> > industrial society.
Not true at all! The opportunities for the non-degreed person are
greater today than they ever were. When we were mostly farmers, generally we
had to stay farmers, because opportunities for education or intellectual
broadening were limited.
There are countless examples of people with minimal or intermediate education
doing very well in business. Pursuing a PhD and becoming a businessperson are
two different life tracks, with many failures and a few successes in each.
They're not mutually exclusive, either. Some heavily-degreed types do well in
business. A businessman is unlikely to cross over and become a scientist,
mostly because science is more structured. You have to have that degree and
put in your time before you can 'make it' in science. The business world is
wide open, and anyone with native intelligence and guts (and a little luck)
can succeed.
>What I am saying is that before you bemoan "anti-intellectualism" of the
>"comman man" who runs his own business, try it yourself and see if it is
>an easy experience. It would seem that the "comman man" is quite
>unique!
>April
********************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
630-548-3548, fax: 630-369-9618
email wpenrose@interaccess.com
********************************************************
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: bonus@algonet.se (Bjorn Danielsson)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:33:59 +0100
Lord of the Flies wrote:
> Well Ken, the answer about the acceleration is both. Both acceleration
> and velocity cause time dilation. For acceleration, the time dilation will
> change with time. It is the acceleration which resolves the problem of the
> twin paradox. This is well documented as it is considered a very good
> relativity problem.
The acceleration field produced by the rocket's turnaround is not a
physical explanation of the twin paradox. The acceleration field, as
seen from the rocket, will produce lots of strange effects including
the effect of immediately changing the velocities of large galaxies
far away, by just turning a knob in the rocket's control panel.
A better explanation is found by analyzing the rocket's motion from
an inertial frame. It doesn't matter which inertial frame. If we look
at both twins as they move from event "1" to event "2", where event
"1" is where they take separate paths, and event "2" is where they
meet again, it can be shown that for the twin in the rocket, some part
of his path between the events will always be time-dilated to a
greater extent than any time dilation for the other twin.
That acceleration in itself does not explain the twin paradox can be
understood if we let the "earth" twin sit in another rocket ship which
accelerates back and forth between the earth and moon all the time,
without ever reaching a speed of more than 100 km/s or so. The twin
in the starship on the other hand, may spend only a fraction of the
trip in accelerated motion, and he will still be the one that has
aged the lesser amount when the twins meet again.
The only explanation that acceleration provides is that acceleration
is what causes both the velocity increase and change in the direction
of motion that lets the twins meet again. But we get exactly the
same effects by using three inertial frames that synchronize their
clocks pairwise at three different events (departure, turnaround,
and return), with no acceleration occurring anywhere.
Followups to sci.physics.relativity.
--
Bjorn Danielsson
http://www.algonet.se/~bonus
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: If US had been parliamentary, no Vietnam war?
From: Alison Brooks
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:23:39 +0000
In article <5bc184$q32$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes Plutonium
writes
> If the US had been a parliamentary form of government where all
>politicians are elected and not these cabinets that linger from one
>administration to another and really run the government. Then,
>hypothetically, is it highly likely that the Vietnam War would have
>never occurred? Or if it had, would not a parliamentary form of
>government gotten the US out quicker? One can argue that the US Vietnam
>War was chiefly the result of foolish advisors to the president.
>
Interestingly enough, while the US was busy getting bogged down in
Vietnam, the UK was engaged in fighting in Borneo, in remarkably similar
political situations. The UK military position wasn't as good as that of
the US; the Borneo border was massively longer than that which the
Americans had to deal with, and the terrain very much harder.
Nonetheless, the UK was successful.
One can debate why this should be; however, there was no great "anti-
war" debate in the UK. I suspect that this was in part because of
different attitudes.
> Perhaps this is a great research inquiry as to see which form of
>democracy is superior-- the US or the UK parliamentary.
>
> In a parliamentary system, the likelihood of foolish advisors doing
>so much damage is minimized, I suspect.
>
If only. You don't live in Britain, do you?
> Same thing in mathematics, where math is run by the old geezers who
>control the math journals. They print and publish the pipsqueak little
>progress. And they do their utmost best to keep out anything that is
>big, new and exciting and important. In fact, they mostly publish that
>which furthers their own self interests or
>you-rub-my-hand-I-rub-your-hand.
>
> The clowns that got the US into Vietnam are the same sort of
>intellectual clowns that control the mathematics publishing journals
>and who hate an idea such as Naturals = P-adics = Infinite Integers.
Ah, paranoia. Isn't it wonderful.
--
Alison Brooks
O-
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Atonality
From: Phil Cope
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:14:51 +0000
crjclark wrote:
> Good music bases 99% of its melodies on major and minor scales, Greek
> modes and their derivatives, pentatonic or any formal scheme of scale
> based on intervals other than seconds. Harmonies must essentially be
> derived from major and minor triads, or superimposed seconds, which
> when inverted become 7ths. There are only 3rds, 6ths, 2nds, 7ths,
> and ultimately a 4th and 5th is a stacked 3rd or 2nd, so by all
> rights there are only 2nd and 3rds stacked upon each other.
So your model of good music consists of harmonies that are derived
fron 2nd's, 3rd's, 4th's, 5th's, 6th's and 7ths, I trust that the
omission of the octave and compound intervals was an oversight on
your part. Given this, perhaps you could tell us which intervals
Schonberg uses in his double plus un-good** music.
Phil Cope
** use of 'Newspeak' (1984 - George Orwell) intentional here
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: If US had been parliamentary, no Vietnam war?
From: Dave Barry
Date: 14 Jan 1997 18:53:27 GMT
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> If the US had been a parliamentary form of government where all
>politicians are elected and not these cabinets that linger from one
>administration to another and really run the government. Then,
>hypothetically, is it highly likely that the Vietnam War would have
>never occurred? Or if it had, would not a parliamentary form of
>government gotten the US out quicker? One can argue that the US Vietnam
>War was chiefly the result of foolish advisors to the president.
>
> Perhaps this is a great research inquiry as to see which form of
>democracy is superior-- the US or the UK parliamentary.
>
> In a parliamentary system, the likelihood of foolish advisors doing
>so much damage is minimized, I suspect.
>
While I would be the first to argue that there are serious problems with
what passes for a democratic system of government in the US, I would have
to point out that while it is true that the entire government in the UK
changes on a fairly regular basis, much of the UK's foriegn policy is
dictated by career diplomats. Unlike the US system where, as I understand
it, the President can appoint anybody to be an ambassador, all diplomats
in the UK are
civil servants, who have actually received training for the job that they
do. Ambassadors especially would have had many years of experience before
reaching their posts. Although the government has some influence in who
gets promoted and who doesn't, there are no such things as political
appointees. John Major (or Tony Blair if you are reading this a week or
two from now ;) ) cannot say that he wants X random person from outside
the service to be ambassador to Mongolia. He can choose one person from a
list of suitable people, but thats about it.
The point I'm trying to make is that the civil service is far more
powerful in the UK than in the US, and this leads to a certain amount of
stability/stagnation from government to government, particularly in
foreign affairs and trade relations (if indeed there is a distinction
between the two), and this compensates for the more frequent change at
the helm, so to speak.
In a parlimentry democracy, there seems to be a need for a conservative
civil service to keep the whole show on the road from year to year; the
politicians do all the talking and the civil servants really run the
country. Although it can be argued that the Vietnam conflict was prolonged
by bad advice, where did this advice come from. Was it from ambassadors
and civil servants, or was it from the military/industrial complex as
Mr. Stone would argue? If the later is the case would a parlimentry system
really have made a difference?
As for comparing the two systems, the US is not a true democracy. Because
of the Electoral College system, the President is not actually elected
by the citizens themselves. The electoral college of a state votes
for the President based on the recomendations of the people of the state,
but that can by no means be called one person, one vote. A citizen votes
to mandate a representative to vote a certain way, but that citizen
doesn't directly vote to put the president in the White House. CNN also
has alot to answer for, while people in the West Coast and Alaska and
Hawaii are still voting, CNN was announcing results from the East Coast
and declaring an outcome, which obviously discouraged voters in the West
from going to the poles. In the UK and here in Ireland, no results can
be announced until all polling stations have closed (yes even though we
are very small, outlying islands vote on different days). Yes there are
exit polls conducted, but these only give an indication, not a result.
But I digress, 'cause CNN wouldn't have been a major factor in the
Vietnam conflict.
The UK system of Parlimentry Democracy isn't all that democratic either,
based on a 'first past the post' system. Each constituancy has but one
represntative, and the person with the most votes wins. This means that
even if the majority of voters voted against a candidate, they can still
be elected if they get more votes than anyone else individually. It is
therefore almost impossible for candidates from the smaler parties, the
Greens, the Liberals, Natural Law or Monster Raving Looney Party, to
ever get anyone elected. It also has a detrimental effect on candidates
running as individuals, rather than on a party ticket.
Here in Ireland, as in other true democracies ;) we operate on a
Proportional Representation system. This works by having more than one
Representative per constituancy, usually between 3 and 5. The total
valid poll is calculated and a quota is tallied, I think its 50% +1,
but I'm not sure. When voting, people vote for the candidates in order
of prefernce, for example, Bill Clinton first, Ross Perot second and
Bob Dole third. They then tally all the first prefernces. If anybody
has reached the magical 50%+1 quota on the first count, they are elected.
What happens then is the distribution of their surplus. All their second
preferences are given a certain value, and added onto the results from
the first round of those who still remain. This goes on until all the
vacancies have been filled. If no-one reaches the quota during any given
round, they eliminate the person with the lowest tally, and distribute
their other prefrences between the remaining candidates. Yes, it is
a complicated system, and counts usually go on well into the night and
next day, particularly if, as they usually do, an eliminated candidate
asks for a recount. What this does mean, however, is that there are a
wide range of people elecetd from many different parties, or none at all,
and the Dail, our parliment, is actually representative of the way people
actually voted. Yes this means that Coalition Governments are the norm,
but this means that the views of the majority of the population are
actually reprented in Government. At the moment our Government is a
coalition of three parties, centre-right, centre-left, and left, the
last government was right and centre-left. Mix and match is the name
of the game.
But back to the point, a UK style parlimentry government would not, in
my opinion, have finished in Vietnam any earlier than the US did in OTL,
however, a parlimentry government based upon a PR electoral system would
have, as it would have been more representative of the views of the people
and would have represented the strong anti-war movement prevelant at the
time, rather than the intrests of the military/industrial complex.
Just my 2.3 Euros worth
Dave
