Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/02/20 in all areas

  1. The military operates on a publicly-owned model where profit isn't the focus (or even within their purview), and it's authority is also derived from the public since the POTUS appoints the Chair of the JCS. I really hate referring to examples as -isms though. It seems very fallacious and slippery slopey to assume embracing smart public ownership of a specific program is going to make us treat everything that way. If we want a smart mix of ownership, we have to stop creating false dilemmas with -isms. The military is a great example of a socialistic program, how's that? It was the pe
    1 point
  2. “Spacetime” is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of dimensionality 3+1, endowed with a connection and a metric. An “event” is a single point on that manifold. A “coordinate” is a unique label that identifies the event - its “name”, if you so will. The specific choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, so long as it is consistent across the manifold. ”Photograph” and “memory” are not terms that are used in this context. And yet that is exactly how GR models gravity, and it does so very successfully. Whether you can accept it or not, it works very well. In the context of GR, the
    1 point
  3. I agree that it is. The military is paid for by the people and is for the benefit of all of them. That fits a common definition of socialism. In fact, I have stated elsewhere that virtually all of the spending based on the enumerated powers of a government such as the US's represents that definition of socialism. (I will add to that: capitalism is not described in or in any way mandated by the Constitution, and the regulatory powers of the government represent deviations from true capitalism.) I have offered up GPS as a great, smaller-scale example. Owned and operated by the US Do
    1 point
  4. A mere novice compared to the ballerina Ms Saccharina with more than 80 million years additional to practice her moves.
    1 point
  5. Fair question. Myself I take the acronym to mean InterGalactic Medium. But who am I to try to educate someone who is TEFL 🤭.
    1 point
  6. Agreed one of the biggest sources of confusion between models is what constitutes a representation vs reality. GR in essence is mathematical representation. When you get right down to it the entire body of all physics models are only representions of what we can observe or measure. Though physics can and does conjecture on non measurable quantities by applying known measurable physics. One detail I have learned from intensive study of different physics models from classical, GR, QM,String theory, MOND, FLRW metric etc etc. Is that all these different models and treatments often de
    1 point
  7. No debate from me... Michel brought up whether events are duplicated in the Block Universe model, in the OP. Aside from the fact that he doesn't seem to understand the BU model, nor what an 'event' implies, he fails to realise that we are ALWAYS dealing with a model ( or map, if you will ), as we can only interact with our local ( causal ) 'now'. A map. model, photograph, or even memories, are all representations of reality. And in none of those representations are 'previous' space-time co-ordinates, events, photographs or memories vacated once an 'object' ( whatever that is ) 'moves'
    1 point
  8. The interstellar medium can be accounted for as the medium affects different wavelengths of light differently depending on the composition. Through this we can compensate for any interstellar reddening by examining the response to different frequencies. Stars will appear to be redder than actual as shorter wavelengths are more easily scattered than longer wavelengths. (This is not the same as redshift) this reddening is also distinctive from redshift. Galactic redshift affects all wavelengths as opposed to selected frequencies of extinction reddening. So by using spectronomy one ca
    1 point
  9. Staff have decided to update the forum rules to include the following: This is in response to a number of threads and certain members who have made threads here under the premise of 'just asking a question,' only to reveal that they are in fact trying to peddle conspiratorial or otherwise nonsense ideas. While covered to some extent by pre-existing rules, we have decided to make it explicit that we will not be hosting these sorts of threads, if for no other reason than the fact that they are a waste of everyone's time.
    1 point
  10. In the US, the extremist capitalists use all kinds of emotional ambushes to avoid paying taxes while making sure public funds are available only for their "investment opportunities". They'll court the racists who don't think people of color are worthy of social support, they'll court the evangelicals who don't think anyone but Christians are worthy of anything, they'll court the conservatives who think anything liberal is drug-related, and they'll court any fringe group as long as their arguments can be turned into less taxes/more exploitation for themselves. The Koch Brothers takeover of the
    1 point
  11. Come on, people, stop polluting the planet's mental space once with a general theory of relativity! Interestingly, whenever anyone is asked publicly for opinions on drug addiction, homosexuality, pedophilia, or theory of relativity, everyone immediately knows everything about it, as if they were all addicts and gays and pedophiles and theoretical physicists. I know almost nothing about this because I am neither a drug addict nor a homosexual, nor a pedophile, nor a professor of physics. I first encountered the theory of relativity in high school and then I read about it and here I will explain
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.