Promissory Note - Extension: Fill & Download for Free

This is an interesting question. The worrying point is that any empirical proof must rely on instruments that measure a force, which in themselves will then have to be calibrated using laws that involve other forces (e.g., Hooke's law, the gravitational law, Coulomb's law). And then you ask what proves those, and you find yourself delving ever deeper into an interdependent web of laws, where you suspect that you're going round in circles of self-supporting definitions rather than getting to true empirical foundations.In fact, it gets even worse, because you then realise that to define acceleration, you need to define an inertial frame of reference. And since this seems to involve the concept of physical laws being invariant, this pulls back to F=ma again. Welcome to a rabbit hole -- how deep does it go?The best that you can say is a) if you accept just a few pieces, the rest follow with some empirical help and b) that they all do hang together very neatly. And this is pretty much where we are with physics (or indeed any other belief system -- there a clear analogies with Quine's concept of a web of beliefs).One way of thinking about F=ma is as Newton's promissory note.His promise as a physicist (though that's a word that hadn't been invented at that point) is wherever you showed him any acceleration he would be able to identify a force responsible and write you a law for that force that worked empirically, obeyed his other laws (including the action-reaction principle), held throughout time and space, and obeyed also a set of conditions that he wasn't aware of at the time (e.g., Lorentz invariant, leads to a least-action principle etc). If Newton ever failed to do that, then F=ma fails.So this promissory note actually isn't empirically provable or unprovable on its own. But Newton started to cash it out with his law of gravitation, Hooke had his law for springs and their extension, then others took over and continued to produce more laws as modern physics really got going, when we started to produce laws of forces in electrostatics, electromagnetism, and so on.The promissory note remains good, and is still being cashed out now.

Because the German state would have been bankrupt.The Nazis funded the economy and rearmament of Germany with Mefo bills[1] , a type of Ponzi scheme[2]Hjalmar Schacht formed the limited liability company Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft, m.b.H., or "MEFO" for short. The company's "mefo bills" served as bills of exchange, convertible into Reichsmarkupon demand. MEFO had no actual existence or operations and was solely a balance sheet entity. The bills were mainly issued as payment to armaments manufacturers.Mefo bills were issued to last for six months initially, but with the provision for indefinite three-month extensions. The total amount of mefo bills issued was kept secret.Essentially, mefo bills enabled the German Reich to run a greater deficit than it would normally have been able to. By 1939, there were 12 billion Reichsmark of mefo bills, compared to 19 billion of normal government bonds.This enabled the government to reinflate their economy, which culminated in its eventual rearmamentIn other words, by 1939 40% of the German economy ran on Promissory notes (bonds) for a company that did not exist. In order to pay back the money, as well as interest, more and more bills would need to be sold on a logarithmic scale.If Hitler had started the war a year later, the Mefo Bills would have made up 60% of the German economy or more. 5 years later, and that would be more than 99%.This fraud was unsustainable as the Nazis would not be able to get enough cash to pay people back. Printing money to pay it back would have led to a hyperinflation that would have made the Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic look like child’s play.Footnotes[1] Mefo bills - Wikipedia[2] Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia

Well, first of all, I don’t believe that “extensively quoted” is anywhere close to accurate. He appears to have quoted exactly three words from Dr. King: “a promissory note”. Trump’s logic seems to have been that since Dr. King once talked about the Founding Fathers, that King therefore was opposing any attempt to stray from the Founding Fathers’ vision.Of course, if Trump had even a rudimentary understanding of English, he would realize that that was completely wrong. Here’s the context of those words:“In a sense, we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”Trump stands against the people who are trying to cash that check. In his speech he talked about protecting monuments to Confederate traitors and about arresting “rioters”, but didn’t say one word about opposing police brutality or in any way protecting the rights of African-Americans. It was a speech filled with racism, and throwing in a few words from Dr. King and a few mentions of other great black leaders doesn’t change that—especially when he uses the words from Dr. King in a way opposite to what King was saying.