swansont

It’s irrelevant, really - that some people would observe battles for entertainment is not one of the causes of the war. I’m not sure if one can make an argument that it’s a sign of living in or not living in a democracy, but nobody has made that argument, one way or another. Since that’s the topic of the OP, why bring it up?

! Moderator Note This thread has been a good example of why we insist on quantifying things in physics. Hand-waving doesn’t remove the danger that you’re fooling yourself, but numbers don’t lie. If you don’t have a testable model, it’s just a WAG. We’re done here. Don’t re-introduce the topic.

Somebody has to dance on stage at Chippendales. Some folks just don’t feel embarrassed, or don’t care, in certain situations. When I was young, I wasn’t convinced that embarrassment wasn’t fatal. As I got older I got more comfortable with myself, and cared a lot less - I could laugh at myself if I did something stupid or klutzy, or had a joke played on me, instead of shrinking away if others got a chuckle out of it. I recall an interview Robin Williams gave in which he described the gland that caused inhibitions/embarrassment being burned out in him, and others who could act outrageously on stage.

Strange? In that it didn’t fit your preconceptions? It’s why we try and deal in facts, and want sources of information, rather than assertions about what one “feels” is the case.

That was your lead sentence. You had not posted prior to that post. What followed was “as for the rest of your question” So no, there was no context that’s missing. So…today? Condolences. Why should celebrities have more rights and power than the average person. Surely that’s more like an oligarchy than a democracy. Evidence that this is the case? the US is currently pumping more oil than ever, and we have a dem president. “United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545 Production rose dramatically between 2009-2016, when a dem was president, after having dropped under the previous repub president https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart But that opens us up to the tyranny of the majority. Why should people far away have a say in something that might pollute your back yard?

“For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this” (emphasis added)

The US Civil War happened for entertainment? WTAF?

Is that actually workable? How many decisions are made in government every day? I used to work for the government - would my decision to buy some widget have to go through a referendum? What good is a system that’s unattainable? So democracy wasn’t possible until the last couple of decades? Does everyone have internet, and if they do, do they all have the ability to do this?

That thread hasn’t been locked, and you asked a question rather than making an unsupported assertion. Though it was split from another discussion, so it’s not like you were following the rules of your own volition.

! Moderator Note iNow makes a valid point; this is a discussion board

It would be your government. You could set it up any way you want. There are governments that own businesses. Sometimes they’ve always owned it, sometimes they seize privately-owned industries; the latter is called nationalization

If memory serves there was someone who had an artificial island (WWII radar station, or something like that) in international waters who declared themselves to be a sovereign nation. <pause> found it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand One of the issues this points out is that other countries can just ignore your sovereignty claims.

Feynman. But the context, and the whole message, matters a great deal. He immediately discusses comparing the guess with experiment to test it. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. If all you have is a guess, it’s not science. https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/

That would be funny - thinking you’re hearing a rare bird only it’s a recording played back by someone else.

But “most likely” isn’t the issue - your idea requires that we don’t observe most of those supernovae. Expansion happens in all directions. The idea has to apply to all of the observations. Cherry picking a scenario isn’t science.

An assertion is not an explanation. Or evidence. edit: something one could do is look at a lost of supernovae and sort out the 1a events, and see if they are distributed through all angles. And you know what? They are! http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html So the assertion that we wouldn't see ones at certain locations is bogus. ! Moderator Note If you want to argue against the big bang - or any mainstream science - you need to present evidence, in its own thread. In any speculations thread, you can either cite evidence, or mainstream science. Not other pet theories.

Why? Is there some reason that being at our distance should somehow suppress a star from going supernova?

What about a galaxy that was on the same path as us, some distance away, but a similar distance as these other galaxies? edit: xpost with Genady

! Moderator Note Advertising is against our rules, but thank you for noting the transcript/summary was generated content. I will remind everyone that discussion of the synthesis of dangerous chemicals is also against the rules

No it doesn’t Doesn’t matter; this is science. It’s what the evidence tells is that does,

That’s not consistent with what we know. The universe is expanding, and that expansion is faster as the distance grows. At some distance the space is added at a rate that makes the objects recede faster than c; the light from them can’t get here anymore. If you make claims you need to be able to back them up.

Which is why Larry Flynt noted “Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper” (others have made similar observations over the years) What are the characteristics of this ideal democracy?

What if you are in the minority, and the majority has no interest in such a compromise?

He also clearly said at the outset that he was talking about future knowledge - “the day will come” and “I’m imagining a future” and you are just completely ignoring these caveats and end up overstating what he claimed. Do we know of chemicals that make people depressed? Do we know of ones that don’t? Yes. Is this knowledge exhaustive? No! But he’s not claiming that it is.