Leaderboard

If the majority still supports Brexit they would still be able to have it via another vote. In lieu of all that has happened to since the initial vote I think another would go smart. Measure twice and cut once.

Sorry to disappoint you. I guess I'm not as knowledgeable as you and don't yet understand. Do you think you might help me understand without the judgement? Is it illegal to hold another referendum? Is that what makes it unprincipled? Does the law allow not allow for asking the same question more than once? Would it be unprincipled to hold a referendum after Brexit to see if people would like to rejoin? Or is it that once a decision is made, it cannot be reversed? Was there a referendum to join the EU in the first place? If so, was the referendum to leave the EU unprincipled? As I said, we have multiple votes all at the time on the same issue. People in Congress attempt to pass or revoke the same laws over and over again. Are Right to Life believers unprincipled for not just accepting abortion? In the US the view seems to be more that times change, and what once was a good idea may no longer be so. If the majority change their mind, how is it principled to keep going down the same path? If we didn't ever change our minds, we'd still not have women voting in the US. Or Britain for that matter.

it makes me wonder why we fought so hard to join... shouldn't that decision be honoured?

So "the people" are never allowed to change their minds? Either because there is more information now? Or because the population has changed (stistcically, it is likely that more leavers than retainers will have died, and more retainers than leavers will have entered voting age)? Or because the vote is extended to all those affected (EU27 nationals in the UK, UK residents in the EU27)? But, more importantly, it will not be asking the same question. So saying you will vote based on the previous result doesn't make much sense. Referendum 1: Do you want to eat out? YES / NO Referendum 2: What do you want to eat? INDIAN / CHINESE How do you vote in referendum 2 to "honour" the result of 1? Admittedly, Referendum 2 might have the option "Actually, I don't fancy either of those. I might just stay home". So you could say that you wouldn't choose that because you want to support the people you disagreed with before. That's up to you. It just seems irrational to me. You should still vote for what you want or think is best, not for what other people want. It would be more logical to abstain in that case. That is effectively the "I'll go with whatever everyone else wants" vote. Maybe you doubt that because you never saw the targeted advertising, because it wasn't targeted at you. The ads were very cleverly targeted so people who were concerned about immigration would see lies about how being in the EU meant that more illegal immigrants came into the country. Or how Turkey would join the EU soon. People who were concerned about animal welfare would see lies about how the EU was bad for that and so on. The vote was so close that it would only have need a small percentage of people to be "nudged" for the effects to be significant. Remember, before the campaign started, most people didn't really care that much. They might get a bit annoyed when they saw another (dishonest) Daily Mail headline about the evils of the EU, but it wasn't something that would influence their votes in a general election, for example. Surveys before the referendum showed that "membership of the EU" was really, really low down the list of most people's concerns. Now, of course, it seems that everyone has been radicalised and is strongly pro or anti (and probably believe they always have been). Anyway, I have given up caring. It is pretty clear now that the PM wants the UK to leave with no deal. It will have some pretty bad effects for me, personally, (eg. losing my source of income) but I will just have to work through that. I suspect that there will be a lot of people in the UK, especially the poorer areas, who will be much worse off.

If you have an equation, then post it for discussion. But start your own thread - I suspect the mods would rule it off topic here. The first thing I would look for would be the situation where the balls you describe were at rest and how you think mass affects their time and space.

I have an image of Sensei, in the supermarket, weighing potatoes until he finds one that's exactly 200 grams.

Is the "opposite"* possible? By that I mean is it possible to tile a flat, finite, surface with infinitesimally* small hexagons? Is it still called "tiling" if only one tile is required? *) I do not know if this is the correct term (or if the question makes sense, I haven't yet studied more than entry level limits)

I hate to invoke Godwin's law but ... As I say, there are plenty of precedents for a near 50:50 vote being held again within a year or two.

Here is the U.S. there is a common political phrase used when people advocate for something which might be against the best interest of the country in the name of respecting the law; "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" . I think marching on with policy which possible is not longer favored years later so to honor an initial vote is a suicide pact of sorts. It has been over 2yrs and having another vote is possible. It isn't as though Brexit won by wide margins. It was a close election. Moreover things have been discovered and are better understood today than during the first vote. I understand the concern that holding a second vote could create a precedent for redoing every close election but this is 2yrs later and unlike most elections which have cyclical schedules Brexit was a one of. So there wouldn't be a precedent set for cyclical elections and what precedent might be set for one off elections would have a multi year buffer which seem amicable to me in anyway.

The main point is that I can find no further reference to your magic springs that can be measured as providing different distances between the same two fixed points in space. So this is just so much stuff and nonsense. Since you refuse to explain or backup your assertions I am reporting this thread.

Right, she isn't eligible, but some of her policies may end up being campaign issues, so I want to know what doesn't make sense, since it allegedly happens often.

I’d laugh if this whole situation weren’t so sad.

Maybe it should have been the best out of 3 elections, just to be sure. Too important for a single, simple majority vote, especially when the campaigning was so devoid of substance on what the likely consequences would be - and was almost entirely based on hype rather than substance. No-one knew what they were really voting for. It will upset the Brexiters who think they are still getting what they want, but not those who realise they aren't - and whichever way it goes there will be a significant lot of unhappiness and resentment. I can't imagine voting for something I think is bad for my nation, just to make a point about a prior vote. As for Vlad - if his nation's cyberwar efforts made the difference between Leave and Stay, and left the UK with intractable internal problems he certainly got his money's worth. I tend to view politicians turning up the nationalistic foreigner blaming as an indicator of lack of policy depth and political desperation - pressing peoples hot-issue buttons in order to short-circuit their thinking things through; if the UK is anything like Australia they can reliably count on a quarter to a third of voters to unthinkingly choose nationalistic hype over well thought out policy. Having another vote on something this important - when the initial choice was in ignorance, with results have been so problematic - seems better than pushing ahead with it and not allowing any opportunity to reconsider. It's not like Britons can't still blame the EU for all their problems, whether they Leave or Stay.

If there was a 'center' to the universe, as you suggest, we would see a spherical area, devoid of matter, surrounded by another sphere of matter ( galaxies and stars ) that have been moving away from that center for almost 14 Bill yrs. We see nothing of the sort. Radiation pressure is greatest where it is emitted. By stars in all the galaxies. Yet galaxies aren't flying apart, some are even coming together.The greatest expansion is in the voids between galactic clusters, where radiation pressure is negligible. Your suggestions aren't based on evidence, and so, are non-starters.

We're far from perfect, but every day I thank my lucky stars I'm Canadian.

Must admit when I saw the term "carcass" I was hoping for something a little bigger.

If life off Earth is discovered, what evidence would science require to prove that the life does not share a common ancestor with life on Earth? In other words, how could science prove that this newly discovered life resulted from a different "genesis" than life on Earth? A different genetic code? A non-carbon molecular base? A different DNA structure? Thanks for your thoughts!

No it isn't. C is the offspring of, you guessed it, B. Which in turn derived from BCPL. Which was influenced by algol. And there are a great many other languages that owe nothing to C (lisp, Cobol, ML...)

Being honest with you - I personally don't think it would have made a bit of difference. He was clearly not attacking women or using the identifier as a negative towards women. The Jew thing is obviously worse/different for the reasons MigL pointed out. Why attach it to any thing in conversation at all then? If we didn't - then his words would have been offensive, but we DO, so they were normal and were not.

Saying a person 'j*wed you out of a quarter' is associating a trait with a religion/culture. It is racist because it unjustly associates that trait with all people of that religion/culture. That we both agree on. Calling T May a '****** woman' is associating the trait of being a woman, with all women. Certainly not the same thing. ( I can go into more detail regarding racism, or women, if you wish )

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117068-vector-theory-of-gravity/?do=findComment&comment=1081799 You evidently have a conveniently short memory - or just straight-out sheer 'GR = Truth' prejudice. No. There is no objective justification for booting this forked thread to Speculations. That many GR buffs and even famous authority figures, and also higher-ups here, cannot properly handle the straightforward and entirely unambiguous meaning of R_μν = 0 (in vacuo), is no reason to characterize my pointing out it's rigorously logical consequences as 'speculation'. But I well understand why forum 'realpolitik' has processed it here differently. There are conflicting positions on 'gravity does/does not gravitate' among GR authorities. Unfortunate fact. As you see it - as one having zero technical expertise to pass objective judgement.

Also any field is ability to take energy from space and to return it back.

The concept being expressed was stupidity. Followed by an identifier, singular and specific. if being identified as a person of a specific sex is offensive because of the concept it conveys, setting arbitrary rules on its use as an identifier only reinforces the idea of an an arbitrary concept.

Well this was a waste of time. I'd hoped for actual discussion here, but instead I get an idiot who objects to a spring analogy, somehow objects to me pointing out he was complaining about a post that had already been made (?!) and goes on lengthy tirades rather than even acknowledge the existence of the answer he was given, and expects me to pretend he is being at all honest or respectful. I get someone saying I'm insisting on an alternative to relativity when nothing I've said is at odds with relativity, the conventional model can still occur. I get someone that uses the tired old dressed up argument from tradition despite having the flaw in that already pointed out in the post he's replying to. I get someone insisting I'm using luminiferous aether even when that doesn't follow in the slightest. I get someone demanding that I defend a claim I never made and to insist that I'm doing something I explicitly said i'm not. I really tried, but apparenly it is just a waste of time to try to engage with people on scientific grounds. Inevitably you fall back into stock arguments, assumptions about a person, and tired old arrogance because you believe in the mainstream so you must be superior. That's always how it goes. Conclusions with no why. I don't give a damn about the fact you disagree with me, but if you are going to be so arrogant there should at least be the slightest shred of honesty instead of this vomit. I had hope. A couple of people did at least engage with the content of what I said, but no, in the end the majority always comes back to misrepresentation and attacks and ignorance, relying on cliches even after they've been called out and dealt with, without a word as to what was wrong with the call-out. Go ahead. Chalk it up as a victory, I know how your type works. You intentionally act like this, you openly misrepresent, you lie, you act so unbearable that no one can stick around and sit cosy believing that the fact you were so unpleasant that no one wanted to deal with you means you must have refuted them. You disgust me. So go right ahead. Do whatever you want to this thread, I'm not putting up with this bs. Adios!