MigL

I have to ask ... What do you guys think of the Dave Chapelle controversy ? He makes some pretty offensive comments about Trans people in his routine. And while I might say he has the right to make those comments, because comedy is an art form ( and sometimes it has to be offensive ), you might say his audience then has the right to view/judge him in a negative light, as on offensive, hurtful individual. And I could agree with that. But that is not all they are doing. It is not enough to voice their objections and distaste for his opinions with opinions of their own; they want him cancelled. They want his ability to voice those nasty opinions shut down. I don't even need to mention that most who want him cancelled probably have not even seen the show, as his satire is trying to get people to realize that every one out there has a story. In fact the last half hour is devoted to a story about a Trans friend of Dave's, who killed herself in part due to other's criticism/bullying. Is lack of understanding ( of nuances ) now a reason to be offended ? Your thoughts/opinions are, of course, welcome.

Phi provides his opinion on the usage of "suffer fools", and Intoscience provides his alternate opinion, yet Intoscience is accused of 'judging' by Dimreepr, and of being intolerant of other's opinions by others. Then INow chimes in with the implication that ... Intoscience has a problem with Trans people. IOW, transphobic. I, and anyone else reading this, expect better.

Science and religion are based on differing paradigms. The former is based on evidence, the latter is a 'faith', which you either have or don't have ( no evidence required ). A good scientist can separate the two, and does not use one to validate aspects of the other ( as they are not compatible ). Or, a good scientist may not require religion, and choose not to have faith, in which case he has no issues. A bad scientist cannot separate religion ( faith and beliefs ) from science, and fills in the gaps in his knowledge with a deity/creator. No 'truth' or questions required, Dim.

Why not? Because the 'Block' Universe is a product of GR, and, as such, does not allow a universal frame of reference. A 'God's eye' view of the universe, past, present, and future, would be such a frame, and not allowed by GR.

Thank you. Was the pun intentional ? Nice one.

The 'Block' Universe model does not allow for motion because it encodes past, present, and future. Worldlines are the paths that events take through space AND time. Similarly the BU model does not allow for 'external' observers. As the BU model is based on GR, it is self-consistent with its rules, including length contraction, and the impossibility of an external frame of observation which encompasses the whole universe. IOW, the extra-dimensional observers of the OP are non-sensical.

See the bolded; something that is demonstrably false cannot be an opinion. The Canadian Charter of Rights ( our 'constitution' ) enshrines basic human rights as 'laws', so if the ability to dictate to others how you will be addressed is recognized as a basic right, then it effectively becomes law enforceable by the Canadian human rights tribunal/Commission. The only way around it is by using the Charter's not-withstanding clause, which apparently only Quebec is allowed to use for 'protecting' their language in a bilingual country, and 'protecting' secularism by removing the religious rights to religious symbols ( but that is another thread/discussion; maybe JP will take up that cause next )

Your worldview ( Subjective ) shapes your opinion. Why is mine, if I so choose ( also subjective ) any less valid ? ( once you make self-identity a 'basic right', it will be essentially law according to our ( Canadian ) constitution because only Quebec is allowed use of the 'Not withstanding' Clause )

In a 'block' universe ( 3D+T ) nothing is moving. Events trace out worldlines within the 'block'. So why would you even expect to see length contraction in that model.

Long time ago. There are not billions of objective realities, but there are billions of subjective realities, and the only one that matters to anyone is their own. Similarly, having an opinion is a way of sharing your own subjective reality with others, and because that subjective reality oftentimes clashes with the subjective reality of those others, we have offense, and conflict. Any opinion is bound to offend someone ( as J Peterson has said, to bring us back to the OP ). The answer to this problem should NOT be denying someone the right to their own opinion, rather, understanding that most ( not all ) are equally valid, and, should I choose to recognize/validate your opinion, I do so as a courtesy, not a requirement ( whether by law, financial repercussions, or social pressure ).

For a while, I thought Infamouse was invoking Zeno's paradox, and the ability to measure to greater and greater detail, as proof of infinities. Then I realized he was just stringing Cosmology buzz-words together, in a word salad of nonsense, and stopped reading.

This 'now' does not exist, and is impossible. This 'now' is approximately possible in a local frame. Time does not 'flow' equally all over the universe, but is dependent on relative speeds and gravitational potentials, making the concept of a universal 'now' non-sensical. ( I'm sure Markus will offer some explanation such as the regular foliation based on equal time co-ordinates in Minkowky space is not the only choice, any foliation where the simultaneities are spacelike hypersurfaces is valid, IOW different 'nows' for different observers )

Come to Canada; no explanation needed.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pile up on you like the rest of these guys, because I've generally presented the same arguments as you ( and had the same incomprehensible discussions with Dim 😀 ), at least, concerning JP. But when your partner asks you "Do these jeans make me look fat ?" DO NOT give an honest answer. As a matter of fact, don't answer at all, just leave the roon; there is no right answer.

You can't cycle up a 75 meter high turbine 😀 . Especially the off-shore ones 😄 😄 .

You get no power until the vanes thaw ? What happens to solar panels when they are covered in snow ( I live in Canada ) ? What happens to a regular wind turbine when its generator needs servicing at 75 metrers height ( I have a 15 ft ladder ) ?

And simple wire mesh ( chicken wire ) would keep small animals and children out of the spinning vanes. If one or two of the generators are stopped, it would not affect the function of the rest.

That ... is a 'revision' of the OP ??? The two don't seem remotely related. And I have to question the following Seems to me, doing nothing, such as not going to work, is a sure-fire way of ending up on social assistance/welfare, rather the opposite of enhancing an individual's socio-economic status. IOW, the first iteration of the OP made more sense, because although it made no sense, at least it wasn't demonstrably wrong.

From the description I would think it would not be very efficient as a 'wall' of your typical suburban home because of the close proximity of other houses, however I can see whole fencelines of these generators encircling suburban properties as an alternative to ( or, in addition to, for those sunless windy days ) roof mounted solar panels. They don't look too bad as a fence.

Those of us ( you two included ) who take part in the Politics Forum revel in political squabbling.

and are equivalent if an 'extended' system has an 'effective' mass. The effective mass usually means the mass that the system seems to have, and acts like it has.

Sometimes cheeses are not solely fermented with yeasts and bacteria ... Casu martzu - Wikipedia but with live parasites. It has been illegal since the 60s, but that has only made it more of a 'delicacy'. My great grandfather used to love the stuff, and yes, I've tried it.

There is no universal 'now', or 'present'. It would also need to be infinitely old. The speed of light is finite, so light from infinite distance will take infinite time to reach us. Expansion means, as you wind back the clock, that the universe had a beginning , of sorts, and we can calculate that to be about 13.7 billion years ago. IF ( big if ) the universe is infinite in extent, light from its furthest reaches cannot have gotten here in 13.7 B years

How about 'google'; are you familiar with that ? "n physics, a plane wave is a special case of wave or field: a physical quantity whose value, at any moment, is constant over any plane that is perpendicular to a fixed direction in space." Plane wave - Wikipedia

You're welcome. ( see, I am courteous )