studiot

Whilst it is good that you are expressing/discussing your feelings in a calm and proper way, please tell me how you feel about french lavatory attendants, who are traditionallyfemale in male toilets ?

As seen through the other end of the telescope. Any offers ?

What do you mean when you say time is or is not fundamental ? Why do you think the question is a big deal anyway ? Of the many quantities we can calculate we currently acknowledge a set of 7 fundamental ones (including time) and derive all others from that. But equally we could use a different set, for instance in fluid mechanics we often use force-length-time rather than mass-length-time. But there is no fundamental argument against choosing a set excluding time. The reason we use the setup we do is simply one of maximum convenience. And why did you not address my previous question and comments?

Glad to see this topic is getting going. But aren't you all imagining a simplistic one stage utopia ? Perterkin's comment hits the nail on the head but no in the way he intended. Because you are not voting for what you want but for someone to tell you what to do and what not to do. Say your successful candidate orders everyone not to plant onions. This is fundamentally different from everyone voting to plant or abstain from planting onions. Then if the noes have it as we say you can't plant onions even if you want to. Of course once you have the handed down power it can go to further stages so someone (a minister) is given power under the act to make regulations. She of course can delegate perhaps further, all in the name of democracy.

I think that 'equality' contains its own internal contradiction as does democracy. Equality of what ? Since everyone is not equally able providing equality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcome. Since chance operates in our world, this would also be true if we used 'equally lucky' instead of equally able. Following similar logic, the old saw " do turkeys vote for Christmas ?" applies to democracy as defined by Genady's definition. If the majority voted for you to chop someone's head or hand off what would you think of democracy ? There is more to democracy than just voting. As with equality if you try to apply it to every issue you end up with contradictions.

This is very interesting. If, as you say, DM does not interact with the EM force, does it interact with either the strong force or the weak force ? If not, would that imply that it does not form dark atoms or other particles ? Leading on from that, there are four (known) forces that influence our ordinary matter, so could there be forms of 'matter' that do not interact with one or more of these forces ?

So what do you need, given that I am trying not to influence the discussion one way or another ?

Interesting, Thank you. +1

Well, short of actual drawings here are some guesses and thoughts. I would imagine that the additional load imposed on the structure by your brackets (may I call them brackets ? - it's nice and short) are small compared to the main building frame loads. I would however imagine that locally these brackets could impose quite high additional loads due to wind ( and perhaps other) forces, particularly at their mounting points. As I have already noted the structural dynamics of these connections would therefore become important. A further consideration might be maintenance access - gantryways etc. Cabling, grounding and lightning protection are often an afterthoughts rather than part of the design and not always satisfactory as a result. It is not clear what is meant by " a frame attached to the topside of a stadium to suspend speakers". Are the speakers up there as well ? How are they to be distributed over the stadium, canopy, roof or whatever ? Are these individual mountings or is there a single (central ?) frame or what ?

Yes equity and its adjective equitable are often better. more balanced, words although what is regarded as equitable may change from culture to culture and time to time. I do not see a self contradiction within their meaning like I do with democracy and equality. +1

A name is not the number itself, anymore than are the number we call four. They are all representations.

Yes it hinges upon what you mean by Democracy.

Quite likely. My knowledge of both BS5950 (Structural Steelwork) and BS6399 (Loading for Building) is rather out of date, but a quick gander at the latest versions suggest they still follow the lines I outlined.

Is democracy like equality in that it contains the seeds of its own (self) contradiction ?

This is most definitely a flawed definition of 'wrong' There are cases you should have considered before you made it. I agree with Genady. All these statements are only true in a few specialised number systems. They are certainly not true in any system up to and including the Real number system.

Looks to me like you have now understood it and fixed it.

It is very difficult to comment specifically on so little detail. I do not know about US and Australian codes but the UK wind codes are designed for different purposes from what I understand your requirements to be. The are designed for two principle purposes. The broad brush total forces acting on large surfaces such as wall, roofs, etc, ignoring most openings (which may in any case be shut) and applies an air stream which passes over, under around the structure. Structurally the distribution and transmission of these forces to the foundations should be considered. The forces arising from pressure differences from trapped air, eg uplift on the underside of roofs, sway moments applied to structures etc. What is not considered theoretically would be the effects of oscillations induced by, for instance fluctuating sway moments. These would (should) normally be resolved by model testing. Testing is doubtless best doubly so in the case of small additional 3D members like your support brackets, which ae mounted is especially vulnerable locations.

Yes I agree with both points here. +1 The headline question asks about light, not photons. Which is why I talked about the light weakening in my earlier post. Photons do not spread themselves out. I think that to answer the question what happens when the light becomes spread so thinly and therefore so weakly is that you have to bring time into the reckoning. In other words how long you must wait between photons arriving at your eye, rather than considering them as a continuous stream. There must be a space gap or interval between photons when the light gets that weak. But eventually a photon will 'travel' down any individual line of sight, giving the impression of a continuous spread out wave, but measured over time. Does this help ? Thank you.

So I was wasting my time offering to discuss your points with you. Thank you and go well.

'Free' is your word not mine. And since I don't fully understand what you mean I can't offer definitions in statistics or probability that are 'free' The liar paradox example offers you a statement whose truth value is undecidable. That is why it is a counterexample to your assertion. Note the terms 'wrong' and 'right' are not really technical ones. False and True are preferable in both formal logic and formal mathematics. As regards why statistics and probability offer counterexampls; it is because they necessitate multiple outputs or values for a given input. In other words they represent a range of values rather than the plain binary 'true or false' with nothing in between. You are still ignoring both tristate and fuzzy logic which have yet further ways of denoting multiple or ranges of values and also independence or what engineers call the 'don't care values' in the truth table.

A rather large point here. Very often it doesn't get to our eyes. This is because you asked about distant stars. As well as becoming weaker and weaker, the light that arrives from distant stars is redshifted, which means it becomes of lower and lower frequency by the time it reaches our eyes. If the stars are distant enough, the 'light' is of too low a frequency to be visible to our eyes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift This is why the new James Webb telescope is configured to observe the frequencies and thus to see stars we cannot. Of course we could see them if they were close enough. https://webb.nasa.gov/

Thanks, Yes the potholes you refer to are the result of a vertical vortex axis. I am suggesting that in this case the (concrete) bed topography is just right at this location to generate horizontal axis vortices. I am sorry the photo is not really clear, the river had risen further into full flood by the time I was able to get a camera and photograph it.

Your opening post contained an assertion that I challenged since it is not completely true. I gave you a counterexample. I did not only answer your question but posted in such a way as could not be (I thought) mistaken for anything other than an answer to the question you asked, which I identified by the question mark you provided in your opening post. Apart from the mathematical versions of the above examples, what about statistics and probability ? This time I provided two further counter examples to the false statement you started with as pertinent to explaining why I made the answer I did.

Thank you for the link and reply. +1 I'm not vey impressed with the Wiki article however, the list appears somewhat padded out. For instance vinca minor is listed and also appears as one of select few photographs on the companion Wiki article entitled invasive species which defines invasive species. It seems vinca is on somebody's hit list. Yet I can't see what terrible damage it is likely to cause, especially as several respectable american horticultural bodies offer cultivation advice.

Thanks for explaining that relationship, which I did not know. +1