C. Fabius Lupus

Specific weight of gold: 19320 kg/m3 Specific weight of granite: 2700 kg/m3 This is not even 15% of it. Was this some kind of a joke? You write too much while providing no facts to support your point. I asked you a simple question: What substance would be heavier and cheaper than gold? Instead of all your polemics, the correct answer would have been depleted uranium or tungsten. The first one is expensive to handle due to its radioactivity, the second one is not easy to turn into coins. So far it had only be used for producing counterfeit gold bars. Coins could easily be detected by the old procedure of biting on them. Gold coated tungsten coins would be too hard and still require a considerably expensive part of real gold. Why do I actually have to provide the arguments against my own point myself? You are doing a lousy job as opponent in a debate, especially considering the amount of words you need. I would have a harder time disputing the topic with myself.

Which alloy exactly would you use in order for the gold coins not being immediately detected by having too little weight? If you answer this, I will give you the price calculation and show you that it is not viable. You do not need to answer with an entire essay, just two words, the names of the components of this alloy.

There is one device that can do all of this together. It is called a "hand". You can usually feel with your hand, if a coin has not the correct weight or thickness. And if you want to be absolutely sure you put two coins next to each other and check if one is thicker. There are also scales readily available to check the weight. This is certainly easier and safer than the UV-lamps and special pens, which are in use today to verify paper bills of higher denomination at supermarkets, restaurants and shops.

It appears you misunderstood some things here. What do I have to do with Europe and the ECB? It is not only the fake notes that are not accepted anymore in several African and Asian countries. No US Dollar note issued before 2000 is accepted there, no matter if fake or authentic. The credibility of American money itself has been severly damaged by the North Korean counterfeit attack. Of course I was easily able to exchange my pre-2000 dollar notes in Europe or the US, but this did not help me while I was travelling and had surprisingly only half of my cash that I got from my US bank available to exchange it into the local currency. The article you quoted made it quite clear that the authenticity of these cheap fakes can easily be verified, because they they do not have the correct weight or thickness. A good counterfeit coin would need to have the same specific weight as real gold, and this is extremely expensive. It can be done and you might be able to make a small profit of maybe 10% of the value. So if you have a big turnover you can still make money, but even the fake coins are still so expensive that you cannot afford to throw them away. These cheap fakes with the wrong weight are like paper money produced with a copy machine. It might work in a dimly lighted room and when nobody has time to have a closer look at the notes or the coins but not as a large scale attack against the monetary system. Regarding Constantinople, British warships had the harbor of Constantinople occupied after WWI. There was no reason to return the city to the saracenes. It was a short-sighted decision based on diplomatic considations of that moment without the big picture in mind. If you call Assad a war criminal, because he bombed his enemies, does this also apply to Churchill, Roosevelt or Truman then? Should he have dropped teddy bears? It is not called war crime, it is called warfare. By the way the use of poison gas has been traced back to the Saudi prince Bandar who gave it to the rebels to stage a false flag attack and to cross Obama's "red line".

There is no element with the exact specific weight as gold, if you hav been looking for that. You would always mix it with lead, which has a lower weight. What you need is the heavier component. This is the expensive part. There is no way to produce counterfeit gold at a reasonable price, so you could drop it from planes. Paper money on the other hand is easy and cheap to produce. And he North Korean attack on the US Dollar was quite successful. There are several countries now that do not accept dollar notes printed before 2000 anymore. I was quite surprised when I realized that I could not exchange half of my cash there. Only the fact that most transactions are cashless prevents major damage to the US economy by countervfeit money. What you said about Turkey is only a strong point that the issue of Constantinople cannot be considered as closed yet. The barbarians have to return Constantinople. I really do not understand why the Turks were allowed to keep Constantinople after WWI. It is outrageous. The West finally defeated the saracenes after 500 years of almost continuous struggle and they did not take back what righteously belongs to Europe and the Roman heritage. We are talking about the former imperial capital here, not about some insignificant border dispute. With Constantinople given back to the NATO ally Greece the strategical situation would be quite different. If the Sunni nations would be alienated by an alliance with Assad would no make much of a difference. They would stab the US in the back at an time. Furthermore the Sunni Palestinians never had any problems with Assad. Calling Assad a war criminal is at the same level as the constant claims that Bush is a war criminal or Cameron. This does not even require a response.

Only a fool would think that Turkey is still an ally. It is about time to get rid of this traitor in the NATO or at least support a military coup to get rid of Erdogan. When it really counts, Turkey would refuse to have their bases and airspace used. Faking gold, although theoretically possible, is extremely difficult and not practical. All alloys with the same or a higher specific weight are also extremely expensive, usually more expensive than gold itself. The only metal that I can think of would be depleted uranium. It would be cheaper but more difficult to handle during manufacturing of the coins. Your approach is unrealistic and only works for paper currency. The IS was quite clever with the introduction of its currency. There is neither a way to refuse its international acceptance nor to counterfeit it. Supporting Assad is the only viable solution. He has always been tolerant towards religious minorities, more than any other country in the region. He is a civilized and reasonable man with a modern attitude. And he is the only one with the ability to succeed, if he gets a little support. Having him as an ally would make Turkey superfluous. However Russia would probably have something to say here. Are we supposed to feel relieved now that the amphitheater has been put to some use again?

Counterfeit gold? This would require a pretty good alchemist. No, the solution for Syria is simple: Make Assad an ally!

The Cold War was one by economical power, not by military power. Trade and engineering are the strength of the US, not the battle field. This worked for some time, but the US are now becoming softer and softer. Ths will prove fatal against the primitiv mindset of the Mohammedans. Right now America uses the approach that brought down the Roman Empire: barbarian foederati. These are no auxiliaries. Auxiliaries do not have their own officers, they are only foreign soldiers, but under imperial leadership. The Roman auxiliaries were organized this way, and the French Foreign Legion is so today. What the US are doing with arming and trainng the Iraqi and Afghan armies can be compared to the barbarian mercenary armies (foederati) in late antiquity under Odoacer and Theoderic. They were unreliable and often turned against the Empire. This is what is happening today in Iraq. I do not quite understand your negative view of Caesar. He managed even to defeat Pompeius Magnus after the Gallic War. Caesar's name became a title, what shows the respect that he enjoyed among his contemporaries and the following generations.

Both wars were fought on the side of the "Gauls". Apart from that they were fought before the Departmen of Defense was created. Let us have a look at the success record of the Pentagon since its creation: - Korea - stalemate - Vietnam - defeat and withdrawal - Lebanon - defeat and withdrawal - Somalia - defeat and withdrawal - Iraq - withdrawal resulting in civil war - Afghanistan - withdrawal resuling in civil war - Libya - withdrawal resulting in anarchy Not a single conflict was settled after WWII - oh, I forgot the glorious victory over the ooverwhelming military force of Grenada. But apart from that the list of successes is rather meager. The "winning the hearts and minds" strategy with more concern for the enemy than the own troops does not seem to work out somehow. What is needed is a tougher man in charge, a man like Julius Caesar, not some rules of engagement that only ensure certain defeat. Gaul was annexed after its defeat. The native religion (druidism) was suppressed and ceased to exist a century later. Before Hadrian Rome never withdrew from a conquered country. This is what Caesar would do today in the Middle East: Invade with ground forces, no matter how many casualties, never withdraw the troops, replace the native rulers with a military governor and crack down on the native religion. Use the auxiliaries from one country against another and let the auxiliaries be commanded by your own officers, not by natives. Impose your own culture on the conquered nations and leave no doubt who is the superior one and who is the barbarian. With Caesar in command Iraq would today be an Amrican province under an American governor, all mosques would have been demolished and any public practice of Islam would hav been banned. There would be no such thing as ISIS. Ground forces could easily march into Syria from Iraq and suppress any civil unrest, Assad would be made a client king. Problem solved, the archaeological sites would be safe under the Pax Americana.

Yes, humans have the bad habit of dying some day. However he won the Gallic War. And he subdued the Gauls for good. This is what counts. And it is more than the Pentagon can claim anywhere in the world even with far better odds..

When it comes to war strategies, you should always ask the question: What would Caesar do?

Trying to understand the enemy, "winning their hearts and minds", questioning our own motives and means, trying to have an objective, neutral view of us and them, this false cultural relativism is what has made us weak, effeminate and demoralized. This despicable weakness is not an example that the barbarians would want to copy. And this is why ISIS gets every day more followers from all over the world. Weakness is not attractive. So they reject all the achievements of our civilization along with it.

The Eastern Empire did not fall and it was even wealthier. It is funny how people usually think the Western Empire was Rome and it came to an end in the 5th century. The capital of the Empire was Nova Roma, i.e. Constantinople. The independent administration of the West was only a temporary phenomenon with many interruptions. And the Western Empire was not dissolved by Odoacer but reunited with the East. Odoacer was a Roman foederati general, not a barbarian invader. The former capital Rome fell later on under temporary control of barbarians, but Roman rule over the West was fully restored under Justinian. Many dates can be named as the "Fall of the Roman Empire" according to the historical interpretation. But the end of the Western Empire is the weakest interpretation of all. It is probably an interpretation promoted by the Pope in Western Europe, since the Catholic Church claimed to be the legal ruler of the Western Empire by forging the so called "Donation of Constantine". For all other purposes the end of the rule of the last Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus was a minor event in the history of the Roman Empire that lasted a thousand years longer.

Christianity is a mindset. It glorifies death. This is the reason why martyrs were worshiped like demigods. The symbol of Christianity is an executed man. Christianity made the afterlife more important than life itself. This is typical Middle Eastern. People lost every interest in worldly affairs and preserving the Empire. To say it with the words of Edward Gibbons: "Entire legions were buried in monasteries." The Western Empire collapsed, the Eastern part did not. This was because the West was more European than the East. The West could not stomach the alienation from the European mindset. The result was disorder and collaps. The East survived, because the people there had an Eastern mindset and the Christian concepts were not that alien to them, since they were already familiar with Zoroastrianism, Manichaeans, Judaism and the Egyptian cults, which also focused on death. No alienation, no collapse.

This cultural relativism under your motto "They are all still men" is the root of today's problems. It is a pointless argument. Bacteria are also still living beings. Does this mean anything? They are barbarians and we are civlized people. This is what counts, not biological similarities. And what do you mean with lives cannot be recreated? The barbarians breed faster than they can be killed. And even if 90% of them were killed, it would only take one or two generations and the former numbers would be back under favorable breeding conditions. Destroyed buildings do not rebuild themselves, killed populations easily grow back.

This is what I seriously doubt. The rise of Christianity coincided with the fall of Rome. As soon as the Christians came to power, Rome ceased being the capital of the Empire. The mindset of the Christians has always been Middle Eastern, not European and espcially not Roman. A Roman mindset means pragmatism. A Middle Eastern mindset means fanaticism.

The destruction of the ancient sites is about rewriting history. The Mohammedans call the time before their prophet jahilia (= ignorance). In 100 years they will claim that there was no civilization before Islam. And since there will be no proof to the opposite left, humans will have no choice but believing it. Nobody will take some micro encoding by some "infidels" from he 21st century as an evidence. Almost all the people there are only Mohammedans anyway. So the "human lives" that you are so worried about, when barbarians kill each other in their usual infightings, are really the last of our concerns. It becomes our concern however, when they threaten world heritage sites. The Islamic State should have been stopped long ago, before they came close to any archaeological site.

Reconstructions are no substitute for the originals. Later generations of historians could claim that all these reconstructed artefacts were just 21st century forgeries of things and buildings that never existed. Only the original is an evidence. The Islamic State is erasing human history. Archaelogical sites are far more important than human beings. They cannot be replaced once they are destroyed, humans can.

The Roman priesthood had an organized structure: flamines, augures, haruspices, pontifices. And there were books that instructed new priests how to conduct the religious ceremonies, even for those had little experience in religious things before their clerical office. This unified order was what Constantine tried to achieve for Christianity too. Even the office of the pontifex maximus was soon taken over by the Christian bishop of Rome, the pope. And he holds it to the present day. Constantine's religion became a Middle Eastern sperstition organized into a Roman structure and melted together with the Roman cult of Sol Invictus. We can still see this in the Sunday being the holy day of the week instead of the Jewish sabbath (Saturday/Saturn Day). Yes, personal worship allowed great freedom. This comes necessarily with polytheism. But the official state cult followed strict rules, which were undisputed, whatever other personal beliefs one might hold besides it. I could mention a few examples, but probably everybody knows them (libations at the altar of Victoria before every session of the Senate, what a Vestal virgin was allowed to do and what she wasn't, closing the gate of the temple of Janus in peace time etc.)

"Regulated" - this is a nice euphemism for just saying "abolished". Like in all other aspects of classic culture the Christians showed here once again their destructive influence. Christianity banned charging interests until late in the Dark Ages similar to the Mohammedan barbarians. The banking system collapsed and it is the main reason, why Jewish bankers dominate the financial system today. Jews were not subject to the relighious ban on loans with interests.

It also highlights hat the Turks are barbarians.

Christianity was not constantly illegal under all emperors since 65 CE. It was not even declared illegal by Nero. Only Christians in the capital were prosecuted by Nero and only in relation to the Fire of Rome of which they were found guilty. Outside of the city Christianity could be practiced freely until the reign of Decius. Not all writings that were not admitted to the bible were of later origin, e.g. the gospel of Thomas. It was definitely composed before the gospel of John, perhaps even before those of Luke and Matthew. There was no "mainstream church" before the council of Nicaea. Constantine created this mainstream church and it took several centuries till all other Christian sects (Arianus, gnostics) were finally suppressed. The Christian have always been well-known for the quarrels among themselves. And this has not changed since the present day. The traditional Roman religion was much more standardized and in harmony with itself. Constantine tried in vain to bring this same level of standardization and harmony into the Christian faith. We should not forget that there is not even today a commonly accepted version of the bible and Catholics and Protestants disagree about which books are canon and which are not.

It would be insane to pay $124.99 for a book that you can download free from the Internet, e.g. at http://dl-books.com/universal-salvation-in-late-antiquity-porphyry-of-tyre-and-the-pagan-christian-debate I have never understood why people would pay for books after they have bought an e-reader. Since Porphyry is rather unlikely to receive his share from the royalthies of the book sale, it is not unfair to circumvent the rip-off by Amazon.

Indeed. So it does not really come as a surprise when a Christian tries to disprove the rules of logic.

Repeating the same false arguments, does not make them true. But perhaps I did not express my point properly, so you were not able to understand it. Therefore let me try to explain it in a simpler way. Hopefully this way we can keep focused on the essential point and avoid excessive thought jumping. Logic and mathematics are a priori valid. No stable world can exist without them. They are necessary conditions for any possible world including our own physical reality. The brain has evolved based on the laws of nature. It has developed neurological patterns that emulate the physical reality and its laws in order to make usable predictions. It is not the other way around as you assume - the brain creating the laws of nature based on its own neurological structure with nature itself being incomprehensible. Therefore the discussion of brain and personality structures (or how you scored in disputes with others) is irrelevant for the topic. Machines may be extensions of human ways of thinking when it comes to higher programs like the apps on your smart phone, but you would find it hard to find human behavioral assumptions and biases in numerical machine code. It is this low-level programing where the rules of logic and mathematics are used. And they cannot be circumvented because they are intrinsic to nature and machine code programming takes place on the physical hardware level. There is a fundamental difference between the digital processing of machines and the analog processing of neurons in the brain. Nevertheless both have to obey to the same rules, which proves their universality. Instead of making claims what you can disprove by showing paradoxes and contradictions, let us keep it simple. Let us use the simple example of a modus ponens inference. Show us which paradoxes it implies or how it is only the product of our personality structure. Or show us how a theoretical world that does not obey to his a priori rule can exist without collapsing in itself due to contradictions in its reality. Show us how the related fallacy (affirming the consequent) can be a valid form of reasoning. To make it easy for you, I am going to provide an example: - Antecedent (p): Brutus stabbed a dagger in the heart of Caesar. - Consequent (q): Caesar is dead. Modus Ponens: [(p -> q) AND p] -> q IF Brutus stabbed a dagger in the heart of Caesar THEN Caesar is dead AND it is true that Brutus stabbed a dagger in the heart of Caesar. THEREFORE it is true that Caesar is dead. Truth value preserved, valid way of reasoning. Fallacy of affirming the consequent: [(p -> q) AND q] -> p IF Cicero stabbed a dagger in the heart of Caesar THEN Caesar is dead AND it is true that Caesar is dead. THEREFORE it is true that Cicero stabbed Caesar in the heart. Truth value not preserved, invalid way of reasoning, i.e. logical fallacy. It is possible that Caesar is dead for other reasons than Cicero having him stabbed, e.g. Brutus could have stabbed him. Now go ahead and prove that this fallacy is not a fallacy. Please avoid excessive thought jumps referring to medieval scholars, military applcations and annecdotes from past disputes that you might have had with other people. Also be aware that mentioning famous names and their opinions do not contribute to the topic. P.S. Hawkings did not admit that he was wrong about the Big Bang, but that he was wrong about Black Holes. Therefore this theory is not yet in freefall collapse, although it should be for other reasons, but this is off topic and has no place here.