Leaderboard

This thread was inspired by comments from Markus Hanke about how important 'local' is. So if some effect is either local or non local what does these mean ? For instance how big a region does a local effect affect ? Does it make any difference whether we are talking galaxy sized, or microbe sized ? Is there any relationship between the size of the region and the effect? Similarly if something is not local (non-local ?) what is then affected ? I have in mind that a non local effect may be distributed without affecting the whole universe. And also the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic properties.

Interestingly, this too is mistaken. Decades of evidence shows rather consistently that the riots get more out of control and the property damage gets worse the more police are present. From 50 years ago: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/kerner_commission_full_report.pdf?file=1&force=1 From 5 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/01/when-police-ratchet-up-the-force-riots-get-worse-not-better/ And from 5 months ago: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/01/why-so-many-police-are-handling-the-protests-wrong

How do you know it's a "bite"? Could it be a small rash that keeps getting scratched open? Or perhaps a wound in a place on your leg that gets a lot of movement, or rubs against clothing, or something else that delays healing? In 6+ years, why haven't you mentioned this to your doctor? It seems odd that the tissue hasn't healed completely in all that time, even if you were interrupting the process somehow. After hemostasis, there's a step where the wound is cleansed by fluids and coagulating platelets before the real repairs can begin. It sounds like your wound is stuck in that phase somehow. We can talk about what it might be, but we can't advise you what to do about it, other than ask your doctor. I hope that makes sense.

Lots. https://www.pewpewtactical.com/nra-alternatives/ I doubt there will be meaningful change but I'm hopeful that Second Amendment supporters will at least find an organization that actually advocates for what they believe in, including steps to reduce gun violence.

OK, I guess I'm the first to fall for the different definitions of 'local'. Local or non-local can refer to subluminal or superluminal separations. Or local and global can refer to small scale approximations ( such as a 'local', flat, Minkowsky approximation of a globally curved space-time ) I assume the two can be related, but it would still help to know which we are discussing. ( keep in mind I'm not a mathematician )

Your first warning was in GREEN. You may find when trying to develop and market a new product that you are often challenged on the technical, marketing, financial and other aspects of your business. Especially by people you need to help you (e.g. investors). You might want to think about how you would react to such challenges when they happen. Would potential investors be impressed by an angry tirade in response to a comment on your plans? Would they be more or less willing to invest if you make false statements? Maybe you need to find a forum more suited to your temperament and goals. There is generally little discussion of product or business development here. And we do require people to obey the rules, especially the one about being civil.

! Moderator Note Except you give away this lie by also abusing the reputation system, voting down a particular person's posts no matter what they said. Your disagreements ring hollow, and your stance is very personal and belligerent. Take a couple of weeks off and decide whether it will be worth it for you to be more civil if/when you return.

Since she's more likely to kill herself with it, or it is more likely to kill a family member; she should be thankful for Columbo's input. Congratulations, you've graduated from simple gainsay, to a strawman in order to defend your bollox. I suspect the NRA will become even more powerful, at least now we know where it's coming from. Having said that, the pendulum only has so much travel before it returns.

The word "actually" is a bit of a stretch there. He has some way-out ideas, not accepted by most neurologists (or even most physicists). I would be very surprised if that has any relationship to how the brain "actually" works. I doubt even Penrose would go along with that.

I think it's perfectly fine if we disagree on this - these being 'just' philosophical speculations This place would be boring and kind of pointless if all of us always agreed on everything. To me anyway, time is precisely the difference between ontology and epistemology - the latter is a temporal concept, the former isn't. I say ontology does not even need 'space' either. Is there? I don't see one - neither written nor implied. Yes, that's pretty much what I am trying to say - though I am not sure whether I follow your deduction using the line element. If \(ds^2>0\) for all spacetime intervals, you'd be in a world that contains neither fermions nor bosons (no notion of massless particles, nor spin), and also no notion of causality; it is doubtful whether there would be any observers in such a world. Isn't this circular reasoning? Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a Lorentz-invariant process (right?), so it is already contingent upon the existence of time as we observe it. The trouble with this is that it relies on the tacit assumption that gravity is a fundamental interaction in the same sense as the other three interactions, and thus can be unified in terms of some overarching quantum field theory (which then includes a mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking). I think we need to be careful not to take this for granted - such an assumption is a hypothesis at best, and, in my mind at least, dubious at best. Yes, that's right - this is why we talk about spacetime. Note however that mass isn't the only source of gravity - any form of energy-momentum has a gravitational effect. Furthermore, gravity is also self-interacting, so you can - at least in principle - come up with topological constructs that are held together purely by their own gravitational self-interactions, in the complete absence of any source of energy-momentum. So you can have completely empty spacetime, which nonetheless is gravitationally non-trivial. Well, GR is a purely classical theory, so it "knows" nothing about quantum fields. So far as GR is concerned, given a small region of spacetime, there is either energy-momentum, or there is a vacuum - which then means a completely empty region. The important thing to remember is that the absence of energy-momentum in some region does not necessarily imply a flat spacetime. Gravity is non-linear, so the gravitational field couples to itself. Mathematically, you can have completely empty spacetime - entire universes that are completely empty -, and yet non-trivial gravitational dynamics. These are valid solutions to the Einstein equations. Whether they are physically realisable in our universe is another matter. But even in our universe, you obviously have gravitational influences in the exterior vacuum outside of distant sources, so the principle still holds. I should mention here again (because this is really important) that the GR field equations are a purely local constraint.

The same as everywhere in the civilised world. How is the woman meant to defend herself against a man who has a gun? (His is already drawn before she knows that the man or the gun exist.) What you have done there is rehash the "good (wo)man with a gun" argument, and we already know it's simply not true.

That is exactly why I wrote a couple of paragraphs after that. That was hardly touching on the point I was making. Maybe, some patience here would do some good? IDK? Is there some greater point to be had from waiting around here for clarification of why you posted this comment? Or, will I just end up practicing some Hinduistic ritual while I sit here and hum while I meditate on it?

I think drumbo is using that other definition of 'change'. The geometry of space-time is the field, even in the absence of any mass. The 'curving' of space-time, necessarily introduces energy of the field ( such that gravity gravitates ) in an otherwise empty universe. The introduction of a test mass in that otherwise empty universe will see it move according to that geometric field. By the same token, the victorious truther is proposing that muons decay, not according to their subjective time, but according to 'external' time/change. Does that mean a muon in an otherwise empty universe will not decay as there are no 'external' changes ??? ( his proposal is easily falsified by the fact that time dilation extends a muon' decay time, but, is purely dependent on the muon's subjective speed )

That incoherent nonsense is not evidence for anything.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/justice

One of the many things Tesla was wrong about.

Yes, it is of course possible - but only for simple systems, such as various types of simple potential wells, and also for the hydrogen atom. Anything more complex than this generally can’t be done in closed analytical form, which means you need to use numerical methods and computers. Any introductory textbook on quantum mechanics will explain how it is done for simple systems.

In 1933, one man set fire to a building in Germany and Hitler claimed it was the result of communist agitators and he won his election the following week. It became known as the Reichstag Fire and was used as a pretext to pass laws which took away people’s freedoms and to crack down on anyone not completely supportive of the government. This spring, white nationalists broke windows and vandalized buildings and businesses to make it look like BLM protests were out of control and that rioting was out of hand. It’s known as a false flag operation and it worked. This was used as justification to send in federal agents to US cities... agents with no identification or badges (what some called secret police) who without warrants picked up citizens from the streets who weren’t breaking any laws and took them away in unmarked vans with no due process. Now, Trump claims voting fraud is rampant with mail in voting, a process which is gaining traction this year to drive turnout safely during a global pandemic. People don’t want to stand in lines for hours and touch dirty screens that pass covid to the masses, but mail in voting causes turnout to surge and high turnout tends to mean far fewer republican victories. There is no evidence mail in voting is any more fraudulent than in-person voting, nor that absentee voting is in any relevant way different from mail-in voting (a distinction without a difference that Trump lees making). Who wants to bet that Trumps henchmen purposefully seed the mail with fake ballots in a few months precisely in a way that they get caught and publicized? The obvious motivation is another false flag operation / Reichstag fire to manipulate people into supporting their own objectives and all just so they can use those planted fake ballots to point to news stories about fraudulent voting activity? I mean, he’s already defunding the post office and closing locations in key voting districts to slow them down on the system side, even placing his own unqualified campaign donor like a puppet to be in charge of the post office and do his bidding. Maybe I’m wrong, but you wouldn’t exactly be surprised if evidence came out showing this happening in couple of months, would you?

I wonder, Does Good Philosophy v Bad Philosophy equate to Autobots v Decepticons?

Well, at least cladking has shown us extensively one example of bad philosophy. Ill informed about what science and philosophy are, or better, what scientists and philosophers do, cladking vents his ideas about them. To look back one the criteria I proposed earlier in this thread: Nope Hardly Nope Nope. Done.

! Moderator Note I gave you a friendly green reminder why this would be against the rules. You turned it into both a joke and a rant on censorship. Do you argue loudly with the librarian when he asks you to be quiet? Never mind answering that. You've been reminded of the rules you agreed to when you joined. Have a great day.

Maybe you should look up the definition of "rules" as well. You agreed to several when you joined. Now you are complaining about them.

! Moderator Note Not here! We don't allow advertising of any kind. Please find a better site to promote your new business. Use us for science discussion only, please.

So, effectively, you are using "portable" to denote low cost, ease of use, simple installation, etc. Well, good luck. It is not always easy developing and marketing a new product but it should be valuable experience.

You keep running away, you'll stay ignorant. You keep looking for truth, you'll stay in your own head forever. We're holding on to this accumulated human knowledge for you, it's your birthright, and you're more than welcome to share. But you have to stop being lazy and study.

The big bang. If there was no quanta of space, you could just keep compressing everything together more and more. But you can't, you can only fit so much inside of a quanta of space, and that's why there was a big bang.

I gave fair and valid responses to each source. I'm glad you've found an excuse to leave, I've never seen you make a constructive post.

Learn what censorship is. ! Moderator Note DON'T START A POST ABOUT FUNDRAISING FOR YOUR IDEA.

I didnt inflict any rule, i made a sarcastic comment when YOU where giving the initial idea the prospect of a company.... honestly i think this is censorship or applying an absurd rule when the post was undersgoing a good conversation Dumb laws, also called weird laws, strange laws, futile laws, or unnecessary laws, are laws that are perceived to be useless, humorous or obsolete, i.e. no longer applicable (in regard to current culture or modern law). A number of books and websites purport to list dumb laws. These are in many cases based on misunderstandings, exaggerations or outright fabrications.

I'm not sure where you learned how to cite a source, but if you have specific pages you want to cite in that 431 page Kerner commision report then do so, otherwise you are just engaging in the classic unethical tactic of dumping paperwork on someone with limited resources. The second article is behind a paywall. You have misrepresented the content of the third article. It claims that disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful, and therefore it does not address the problem of dealing with a riot that is already out control prior to any disproportionate police intervention. Unfortunately the goals of maximizing the protection of property and maximizing the potential to rehabilitate criminals are at odds with one another. In order to make a logical and coherent policy, we need to decide what the acceptable minimum levels are for those goals. Both absolutely cannot be maximized.

Its a joke, so i am starting to get worried you are not a bot, so its even more disturbing, i would imagine a bot not understanding jokes but ok you dont either.. Ok, so its not an "idea", and i am not looking for fundraising, did you read the title of the post and all my comments beside the last... can you read? DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments[5] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[6] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Do you think my post fits into any of those? And i would understand if i actually posted a fund raising post, but i didnt