Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 4 minutes ago, swansont said:

    That’s a good question - ratings, perhaps - but it doesn’t change the facts. e.g. the economy is doing great, with unemployment numbers not seen in 50 years, real wage increases and a record high stock market, but it’s not reported that way. Perhaps you should ask the media/punditry why.

    Trump’s very real issues are not being discussed much at all. Why is that?

    I'm hearing a fair bit about Trump having issues on a number of fronts. Unwillingness to comment on Navalny, asking Senate and House members to work against the border deal, very significant legal issues including rape and business fraud charges with very high negative monetary outcomes, age related concerns of his own, Zelensky calling him out on his unexplained "solution",  etc.

     

    Also hear a lot about the US economy doing better than expected, inflation reasonable compared to much of the World and better than predicted, etc. I know Biden didn't defeat US Covid singlehandedly with hydroxychloroquine, but we can't expect him to do everything....

  2. 12 minutes ago, swansont said:

    You’re citing the media’s framing and GOP talking points, not his record. There have been plenty of people who note that Biden is sharp and engaged, which won’t be the conclusion you draw from video clips edited to give a different impression.

    I really don't have an issue with his overall record the last 3 years, especially given the hand he was dealt and continues to be dealt. But he has aged 3 years and wants to continue for another 5 rather than the one left in his mandate.

    Why is the media, right left and centre, focused on GOP talking points? With regard to age and mental decline they are not the only ones bringing it up. Maybe they're not just GOP talking points?

    I've known a number of people with dementia that on good days seem sharp and engaged, though even then they tend to tire easily. Now I don't know that Biden has dementia, but we do know he has had 2  brain aneurysms requiring surgery and we do know that brain trauma increases risk of mental decline with age, beyond that of a significant association with aging itself.

    And we've heard him tell untrue stories that could medically be described as confabulation (as opposed to alternatively... intentionally lying)

    But yeah, I'd still take him over Trump.

    6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    I agree, it was definitely a missed opportunity,

    Not sure I would agree. She had lost a lot of popularity and hiding in the weeds while working in the background may have been best for her. I see at least a possibility of a come back.

    Currently she's still your Nation's plan B...compare with Plan C...House Speaker Mike Johnson

    13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    We're almost there in the US wrt electing a woman president, but it's our conservatives who stand in the way. They still revel in their misogyny and love to pound their chests, but they're also having daughters and the dim recesses of their ape brains are telling them there's a problem with the way they've been behaving.

    But the age of the candidates, that's what we should be focused on...

    Agree. Haley would be much better than either Biden or Trump, regardless of the fact she's younger and sharper.

  3. 20 hours ago, swansont said:

    But you cast this in terms of “democratic process” and “checks and balances” and it seems to me that this is the expected process. 

     

    Granted it's the expected process, which makes advanced age more of an issue, not less.

     

    20 hours ago, swansont said:

    But given that both candidates are old, this should be a non-issue for choosing on that particular metric.

    Given that both candidates are old leads to no choice on that particular metric. It hardly makes it a non-issue.

     

    20 hours ago, swansont said:

    Biden has a great record to run on, so there’s no reason to expect a serious primary challenge, and it’s not like there’s someone waiting in the wings that could beat TFG. So any objection along these lines would seem to be moot.

     

    17 hours ago, iNow said:

     He’s been a good President during hard times with a solid team. 

     

    Unfortunately that hasn't lead to a very strong approval rating. The appearance to even among those that might agree with you both is often of that of a good team lead by a man in mental decline.

    Besides the increased likelihood of mental decline with age, longevity is a factor. Quite a significant percentage of 81 and 77 year olds today are expected to die before January 2029, the end of the next term.

    17 hours ago, iNow said:

     

    The age attack just doesn’t work for me given our candidate set since Biden had only just turned 3 when Trump was born. Biden’s old, but Trump is old and crazy and a dangerous asshole. 

    Wouldn't you prefer Warren up against this old, crazy and a dangerous asshole?

  4. 1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

    Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

    I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

    More important to me than age is rejecting corporate PAC donations. It would be great to have citizen representation in this country again. It's been so long.

    Kind of a "deplorable" assumption don't you think? The type of assumption that probably more lead to Trump winning in 2016 than the fact that the leading proponent of those assumptions was a woman. (not claiming it wasn't a factor either plus or minus, but I think the US has been ready for a woman POTUS for some time...they just tired enough of H Clinton to allow Trump to squeak out a win)

  5. It's extremely problematic getting those past their prime to give up driving their vehicles, even at ages that the majority should not be behind the wheel. Yet here we have very arguably the most important job in the World being left to either a late seventies Trump, who at least has to compete for his ticket, or an eighty year old incumbent who seems to be getting his ticket uncontested.

    Not the greatest democratic process.

    The checks and balances seem a little off balance.

  6. So if I have a charged particle on my desk emitting a photon due to constraint against gravity alone, that I can detect with my photon detector with the detector in free fall, there will be no detection whatsoever if it's not in freefall? Or no detection only if the detector is comoving and similarly constrained against gravity?

     

    Or I guess detectable or not in other frames dependant on how there movement is with regard to the Rindler horizon? (Does the wavelength of the photon approach infinite with respect to a frame coincident (somehow?) with the Rindler horizon?

  7. 8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

    What is present in every frame and for all observers is the electromagnetic field due to the presence of the charge (which is what you refer to as “event” above). This is a tensorial quantity, so all observers agree on it being non-zero. However, observers do not necessarily agree on the value of the individual components of the tensor, since these will be functions of space and time, which are observer-dependent concepts. 

    Physically speaking this means that everyone agrees there’s an electromagnetic field, but not everyone agrees what this field “looks like” in terms of its decomposition into E and B components in a given frame, since this decomposition is again observer-dependent. For the field to look like radiation, E and B must be periodic functions of space and time of a specific form, and they must be related in specific ways; this may not be the case in all reference frames.

    When you do the maths, what you find is that the radiation emitted by a charge supported in a gravitational field is in fact present even for a comoving (=accelerated) observer, but it is located in a region of spacetime that is inaccessible to him (it is beyond the Rindler horizon). On the other hand, the freely falling observer is locally inertial, so there’s no Rindler horizon, and he can detect the radiation. There’s no contradiction, it’s just that one must be careful about frames and their particular conceptions of space and time.

    Thanks Marcus I'll check out Rindler horizon and see if I can make sense of it.

  8. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    Do you really think they'd switch to the Donald?

    Are there any fence sitters anymore?

    I would hope not, but this is going to be much closer than it should be...which will still be true if the Dems win in a landslide...but can we really take anything for granted?

    Trump may or may not be more likely to win than in 2016 or 2020, but IMO he's considerably more dangerous.

  9. 14 hours ago, swansont said:

     

    Not in its rest frame, but that’s not an inertial frame. In an inertial frame (i.e. in freefall) you would detect radiation.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field

    (see Resolution by Rohrlich)

    “The key is to realize that the laws of electrodynamics, Maxwell's equations, hold only within an inertial frame”

    If it's radiating in any frame it should be radiating in every frame.

    Since it is being accelerated in it's instantaneos inertial frame should it not radiate?

    7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

     

    Not if the detector is comoving wrt to it. However, if the detector is in a locally inertial frame (ie freely falling past the charge), then radiation is detected.

     

    Same event should take place in each frame, even if seen differently, correct?

    What am I missing?

    Other than inside neutral atoms, shouldn't any charged particle constrained in a gravitational field (so not in free fall) radiate, even if negligibly/undetectably?

     

    Special conditions (that I don't understand) aside:

     

    "According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation. In some classical electron models a dmitistribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emittedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition#:~:text=According to the Larmor formula,that no radiation is emitted."

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition#cite_note-Pearle_1978-1

  10. 14 hours ago, iNow said:

    I am holding to a whisper of a hope that they are intentionally planning to do a candidate switcher-oo at the convention where Biden steps down and Harris / Newsom then blast a bunch of fresh energy into the race talking about things that actually matter (aka: something other than Cheeto Mussolini)

    Not sure the voters would appreciate the bait and switch, especially to Harris. (Though I think there is currently a move to recover her popularity which is much needed to run on the ticket as VP)

  11. I would like to think that Trump's base is not as committed as he would hope (and given it's Tump you can read that as "he should expect"). They can't be all of one mind.

    Even the rightmost news medias seem to be holding Putin for his treatment if not directly ordered assassination of Navalny. Trump has not yet commented, and has been a longtime admirer if not mutual supporter of Putin.

    Haley is calling his silence out. Accurately. If she doesn't get at least a temporary bump in the polls at Trump's expense Trump will likely win in November if Biden struggles or if their is any significant drop in the economy even beyond his control.

    Mostly my opinion of course. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel a little more optimistic. Hopefully I won't have to and I'll see that bump.

    Also just noticed Stringy's post...hopefully that has an effect as well.

  12. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    I was just pointing it out. The context of the thread is sea level rise in time, so knowing the variation in time is relevant. And the OP has yet to engaged with other participants, so who knows what their intent was?

    I don't know for certain but the statement and graph didn't seem to be in support of climate denial...quite the opposite, though I really should have directed my post more at Bufofrog.

    Hopefully thidmir will clarify.

     

  13. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Linear in concentration. As Bufofrog notes, this is not linear in time.

    Wasn't that the context thidmir intended?

     

    On 2/15/2024 at 4:56 PM, thidmir said:

    There's one other thing, the there is a strong correlation between level of CO2 and global temperature, so greenhouse gases definiely need to be mitigate to avoid having to see what would happen if Earth warmed by 4 degrees Celsius. 

     

  14. According to Lee Zeldin this could happen in the US as well:

    "Former New York Republican Representative Lee Zeldin compared the death of Alexei Navalny to former President Donald Trump, saying that Democrats want to make sure the former president "dies in prison."

    "As the world reflects on the murder of Alexei Navalny at the hands of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, it's worth remembering that Democrats are actively doing Biden's bidding as they also try to imprison his chief political opponent, Donald Trump, remove him from the ballot, and ensure he dies in prison," Zeldin wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter."

    https://www.newsweek.com/republican-compares-trump-navalny-democrats-want-him-die-prison-1870722

     

    I think there is a slight difference between the two cases but I can't quite put my finger on it...

    Though some Republicans like Nikki Haley don't seem to share Zeldin's view of poor Donald:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/16/navalny-death-trump-putin-00141899

×
×
  • 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.