exchemist

👍

Sara e, you might want to check the dates on some of these threads you are responding to This one is 8 months old.🙂

Ancient History and Archaeology. He takes after my father, not me or my wife (who was a mathematical engineer).

It's all described in the text. The note defines the 3 frequencies and the text explains how they were combined. The relevant section starts "To entangle the two drums, we irradiate the cavity with two pulses simultaneously......"

Some may have a different view from me. But looking at similarly highly educated parents, for example at my son's school, I felt a lot of them were constantly worrying, whether it was about academic results, or physical aptitudes, or psychological things and trying to micromanage how their children developed - and that a lot of it was quite outside their control because the child is who he or she is anyway! (I'm the eldest of five and my mother was a teacher, so I'm used to a fairly robust attitude to these things.) Some people have books and books on child-rearing. We had a couple (I was given a very amusing one for dads, written by the publishers of a well-known UK brand of car maintenance manuals: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Baby-Manual-Conception-Haynes-Workshop/dp/1844257592 ) So my kneejerk reaction was: "What? Not yet another dimension of things to worry about, pointlessly!" I'm going to Scotland to see him tomorrow - his final term at university. I can hardly believe it.🙂

Well I just gave my personal opinion as a parent. There is already so much one can worry about with a child. My experience has been that most of the things one frets over resolve themselves. It is all too easy to overthink parenthood and thereby diminish the pleasure. Children should be allowed to be unique individuals without parents worrying about where in the genes some feature, or facet of behaviour, may come from. They are not laboratory rats. If there is really something wrong with your child you will know and can seek professional advice at that point. What was it James Bond said? “Anxiety is a dividend paid to disaster before it is due.” Personally, I would not volunteer for another source of anxiety. But others may feel differently.

Details are given in the paper. See notes to Fig 1. which define fc, fm1 and fm2. The system is simultaneously irradiated with 2 frequencies: fc+ fm1 and fc- fm2. I'm unclear why you could not see this.

No, we think he is a dangerous fascist, one of many in Trump's administration with contempt for democracy, who is working night and day to destroy it and replace it with one party rule. That's a tad more serious than treating workers poorly. This DOGE campaign is a "terror", intended to terrify everybody working in government so that they keep quiet and do the will of Trump and his acolytes, regardless of wisdom or legality. DOGE is also physically shutting down - by armed assault - agencies that have nothing to do with the government, without any legal authority. This is getting increasingly like Hitler's Brownshirts. Musk also interferes in the politics of other countries, spreading lies and supporting neo-Nazi groups and individuals.

If you want a reply you need to post the relevant text here. It's one of the forum rules that readers should not have to good off-site to open files from unknown sources. Is this an extract from an online journal? If so you could post a link to that.

Yes, monarchies, e.g. the English- and later British - monarchy, can be very stable indeed. But then they have a high degree of succession planning that is accepted by the people they rule, which avoids a power vacuum when the monarch dies. And they have also made concessions over the years to give the people a say, in order to retain acceptance of the system. In fact, the English and Spanish monarchies were actually reinstated by popular demand after experiments with a republic, which in both cases had led to autocracy (Cromwell and Franco).

Agreed. It seems impossible to draw firm conclusions from attempting to correlate the presumed style of government with military success or long term stability. But what does seem to be the case is that territorial expansion reliant on a single autocrat often does not create a stable entity.

That empire, built up by Cyrus from 550BC seems to have lasted about 200 years. It was ruled by a succession of kings. It notably failed to retain Greece (cf. battle of Salamis, in which the Persians were defeated by democratic Athens) - and was eventually taken over by Alexander the Great.

Oh yes, this is because he knows he's radioactive, so distancing himself from Poilievre will help the latter's chances.

I can feel my individual spinal vertebrae and I have been able to feel those of my wife and, before that, girlfriends, e.g. when giving them a back massage. This is normal. If you are concerned, get a friend or relative to have a look and see if they agree it looks normal. If you, or they, still have concerns, then as others have said, get your doctor or physio to examine you.

OK thanks. I can see that a blue shift increases the energy of the light as received, so if they are measuring "brightness" by energy flux (which will be the case with a bolometric measurement) then a blue shifted galaxy will be "brighter" than a red shifted one of equal magnitude. Like you, I'd be tempted to discount relativistic beaming as the relative velocities of the galaxies must be <<c. But what I still can't follow is why the direction of rotation of the observed galaxy has an effect. I'd have though the side advancing towards us would be blue shifted and the side retreating would be red shifted, and this effect would be simply swapped round symmetrically if the direction of rotation were reversed.

What do you mean by Eastern despotisms dominating the world? At what period in history was this? As for the progression you mention, I think you omit one very important feature. Autocratic empires tend to be short-lived and break apart fairly rapidly. This happened with the Mongol Empire and the Carolingian Empire for instance. Often they are held together by the force of personality of one man and when he goes, disorder follows. (By the way Nazi Germany was a catastrophic failure to build an empire, being destroyed in a mere handful of years.) The Roman Empire endured for several centuries but that grew under the Republic, which was not an autocratic system. The Roman Empire certainly continued under the emperors, but by then it was mostly a matter of maintenance rather than expansion. So that seems to me to show the stability of a system that does not depend on the personality of one man. I do not pretend to be a historian, but it seems to me the more long lived political systems have tended to be hereditary monarchies (i.e. with respected rules for the succession of leadership) which had modest territorial ambitions, avoiding overreach. Often these have had some form of popular representation, to keep rule of the monarch to some degree aligned with the feelings of the populace.

They refer to the Doppler effect, which is what has thrown me. How can that brighten anything? And how would it be affected by the direction of rotation of the observed galaxy, as opposed to relative motion of the whole thing towards or away from us? Here's the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/538/1/76/8019798?login=false. I've only skimmed it as yet, admittedly, but could not immediately see an explanation.

Yes, I have in fact tried to be constructive, laying out what I would tentatively suggest by way of reform in an earlier post. Glad to see you take on board the point about money in politics. However I still feel you need to address my point about how a coherent programme for government could be created without political parties. To me that is an almost insuperable difficulty - subject to what further ideas about that you may have. I also really do feel quite strongly that single issue politics is childish and by no means to be encouraged.

I continue to struggle to see how this would work. You would have candidates forbidden to organise themselves into political parties. How then would a coherent programme for government be developed, given, as I pointed out, that this involves trade-offs, prioritisation and funding decisions on the various single issues involved? You say that voters, on the other hand, would be allowed (actually you could not prevent them, in a free society) to form parties, but only on the basis of single issues. How would you stop them combining issues, on the basis of the priorities and trade-offs they would like to see enacted? Surely the relative importance voters attach to various issues is a big part of political opinion. Forcing politics into a set of single issues would just be a further infantilisation of politics. It is the often hard choices between the various single issues, where ideals meet practical reality, where you need mature judgement. The electorate should in my opinion be encouraged to confront this, not to live in a silly bubble of things they would like without regard to the consequences. It seems to me that how the voters organise themselves must be left to them, if we want to live in a free society. What you can control, without impinging on the freedom of citizens, is the effect of disproportionately powerful actors in society, such as wealthy individuals, corporations and unions, who currently buy influence over political parties. You can do that by strictly limiting financial donations and mandating that they must all be published with donors identified. This is done in most democracies, but not, apparently in the USA, perhaps with predictable results. The amount of money spent in US politics is absolutely insane, to any outsider. Regarding the elected representatives, if you want them to enter government with a plan for governing, you must allow them to meet and agree beforehand proposals for the trade-offs, prioritisation and funding that I have mentioned. Without that you would have months of paralysed, impotent government while a programme was thrashed out among hundreds of individual representatives, all with different opinions! If you look at the coalitions that are often formed between 2 or more parties in European countries, the negotiations involved take long enough. Between individual representatives, forbidden to form parties with a pre-agreed programme, it would be ten times harder. If you permit them to pre-agree a plan, you already have a political party, it seems to me.

Why would galaxies rotating in the opposite direction to ours seem brighter? I can see the Doppler effect would make one side red-shifted and the other blue-shifted. But I'd have thought our own motion, either towards or away from the galaxy, would simply make the galaxy look a bit more blue or red shifted overall and the rotation of the galaxy would not affect overall brightness.

That's not Bordeaux Mixture. The key ingredient in Bx Mixture is copper, in the form of copper sulphate. As far as I know it is a fungicide. I have not heard of it being used as an insecticide. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/bordeaux-mixture

Not workable in my view. A number of considerations: - the only practical form of government is representative government, in which individuals are elected to make decisions on behalf of the electors. Because of "Events, Dear Boy" it is not practical to elect people to enact only the specific issues apparent at the time of the election. - government needs an integrated programme for governing. You can't separate individual issues because you will always need to resolve conflicts between issues that pull in different directions, prioritise those that are chosen, and determine what gets funded. - there will always tend to be a coalescence of views among the electors on groups of issues. You can't force people to keep them separate. So parties will inevitably form, whether official or not. I agree recent events certainly show the need for constitutional reform, but I would suggest a different approach. The following are top of the head suggestions that may not withstand scrutiny but for whatever they are worth I'll list them: - Cut back the power of the presidency and reinforce that of Congress. In particular, Congress should be required to approve hiring and firing decisions for the heads of government departments on the basis of written reasons that can be challenged in court by those affected. This would help de-politicise the civil service and rebuild trust in its impartiality. - introduce strict limits on political financing, both of presidential and Congressional candidates. This would reduce the power of wealthy organisations and individuals to distort the process and would make it easier for new political parties to form and win seats, breaking the duopoly. - reform the process for appointing judges. They should not be elected, nor appointed by the Executive, but chosen from the pool of experienced advocates, by an independent appointments commission containing a mix of senior judges and outsiders representing the community (so that it does not become incestuous).

Indeed. And I don’t want to lose a teenager’s interest in science due to any perceived conflict with the religion in which they have been brought up.

Yeah I just get a bit worried with some young people because there is this damaging idea around that religion and science are in conflict. It was all started by an American academic at the turn of the previous century called Andrew Dickson White who developed the so-called "conflict thesis": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis. It is a discredited idea but is nonetheless quite widespread in popular culture. Religion has generally been supportive of science, about the only historical exception being the Galileo affair. Anyway, as you mentioned God I became anxious that you should never feel you have to make a choice between the two, that's all. 🙂

What you feel is your spine, not your spinal cord. Your spine, being bone, is pretty tough and the spinal cord is inside and well protected by it. No need to worry. All is as it should be.