Leaderboard

The military operates on a publicly-owned model where profit isn't the focus (or even within their purview), and it's authority is also derived from the public since the POTUS appoints the Chair of the JCS. I really hate referring to examples as -isms though. It seems very fallacious and slippery slopey to assume embracing smart public ownership of a specific program is going to make us treat everything that way. If we want a smart mix of ownership, we have to stop creating false dilemmas with -isms. The military is a great example of a socialistic program, how's that? It was the perfect example when they did their own housekeeping. It's also an example of a socialistic program that's been co-opted and corrupted by capitalistic elements. While they aren't concerned with profit, they can be used as a tool for profit.

“Spacetime” is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of dimensionality 3+1, endowed with a connection and a metric. An “event” is a single point on that manifold. A “coordinate” is a unique label that identifies the event - its “name”, if you so will. The specific choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, so long as it is consistent across the manifold. ”Photograph” and “memory” are not terms that are used in this context. And yet that is exactly how GR models gravity, and it does so very successfully. Whether you can accept it or not, it works very well. In the context of GR, there is no such thing as an “object” - there is only a set of events along with information on how these events are related, and together these make up spacetime. What we conceive of as a macroscopic “object” is simply a set of world lines, each of which in turn is a specific set of individual events that are related in specific ways. The only difference between a region of spacetime that is merely vacuum, and a region of spacetime that we think of as the “interior” of some energy-momentum distribution, is its geometry - the former is Ricci-flat, the latter is not. That’s all there is to it. In this picture, you simply have events, and their geometric relationships in spacetime, and nothing else. Crucially, this entire construct is static - nothing “moves” anywhere, neither in space nor in time. The question as to why the human mind only perceives a future-oriented succession of space-like hypersurfaces within that spacetime, is outside the scope of the theory of GR - which was designed only to provide a model for gravity, and nothing else. I think this is really important to remember - GR is a theory of gravity, not an attempt to explain the nature of time and/or space.

I agree that it is. The military is paid for by the people and is for the benefit of all of them. That fits a common definition of socialism. In fact, I have stated elsewhere that virtually all of the spending based on the enumerated powers of a government such as the US's represents that definition of socialism. (I will add to that: capitalism is not described in or in any way mandated by the Constitution, and the regulatory powers of the government represent deviations from true capitalism.) I have offered up GPS as a great, smaller-scale example. Owned and operated by the US DoD, paid for by tax dollars. Used by many, and virtually everyone benefits from it in some way. Does anyone want to give it up?

Plastered 🥴

A mere novice compared to the ballerina Ms Saccharina with more than 80 million years additional to practice her moves.

Fair question. Myself I take the acronym to mean InterGalactic Medium. But who am I to try to educate someone who is TEFL 🤭.

Agreed one of the biggest sources of confusion between models is what constitutes a representation vs reality. GR in essence is mathematical representation. When you get right down to it the entire body of all physics models are only representions of what we can observe or measure. Though physics can and does conjecture on non measurable quantities by applying known measurable physics. One detail I have learned from intensive study of different physics models from classical, GR, QM,String theory, MOND, FLRW metric etc etc. Is that all these different models and treatments often describe the same measurable physical dynamics in different ways. Each has its own pros and cons. However all models are representations.

Should that be 7 nm?

No debate from me... Michel brought up whether events are duplicated in the Block Universe model, in the OP. Aside from the fact that he doesn't seem to understand the BU model, nor what an 'event' implies, he fails to realise that we are ALWAYS dealing with a model ( or map, if you will ), as we can only interact with our local ( causal ) 'now'. A map. model, photograph, or even memories, are all representations of reality. And in none of those representations are 'previous' space-time co-ordinates, events, photographs or memories vacated once an 'object' ( whatever that is ) 'moves' ( whatever that means ) to a new space-time co-ordinate. Any interpretations he chooses to make about 'reality' based on a new model ( which he should present ) might have some significance. But he should introduce the new model first; not misrepresent an existing ( and GR compliant ) model, like the BU model.

The interstellar medium can be accounted for as the medium affects different wavelengths of light differently depending on the composition. Through this we can compensate for any interstellar reddening by examining the response to different frequencies. Stars will appear to be redder than actual as shorter wavelengths are more easily scattered than longer wavelengths. (This is not the same as redshift) this reddening is also distinctive from redshift. Galactic redshift affects all wavelengths as opposed to selected frequencies of extinction reddening. So by using spectronomy one can readily avoid any affect the IGM will have on distance measures. The 21 cm line when measuring hydrogen is a long enough wavelength that it the IGM is transparent and is essentially unaffected. ( As one example) however blue wavelengths will often suffer scattering.

Staff have decided to update the forum rules to include the following: This is in response to a number of threads and certain members who have made threads here under the premise of 'just asking a question,' only to reveal that they are in fact trying to peddle conspiratorial or otherwise nonsense ideas. While covered to some extent by pre-existing rules, we have decided to make it explicit that we will not be hosting these sorts of threads, if for no other reason than the fact that they are a waste of everyone's time.

In the US, the extremist capitalists use all kinds of emotional ambushes to avoid paying taxes while making sure public funds are available only for their "investment opportunities". They'll court the racists who don't think people of color are worthy of social support, they'll court the evangelicals who don't think anyone but Christians are worthy of anything, they'll court the conservatives who think anything liberal is drug-related, and they'll court any fringe group as long as their arguments can be turned into less taxes/more exploitation for themselves. The Koch Brothers takeover of the Tea Party Movement is a classic example. What really puts a strain on an economy are those who put personal, private enrichment above all else. An economy isn't one person and their wealth. This focus on private prosperity is what causes most of our problems when you think about it. Traffic is caused by those looking to beat everyone else to the destination. Corruption involving misuse of public funding come mostly from private contractors scamming the system rather than recipients. Most of our laws revolve around treating everyone equitably and avoiding selfishness, and the biggest problems stem from those who consider themselves above that. The world is a colder place when nations put themselves above the interests of the global community. Yet the extremist capitalists are able to convince the half of the Republican party that isn't rich to support measures that only support the rich. What puts a strain on an economy is when there is so much disparity between the wealthy and poor parts of it. I think Socialism puts a strain on a billionaire's perspective on personal enrichment. If they could let that go, they might find an economy that's energized from the bottom up could be even more lucrative for them.

Come on, people, stop polluting the planet's mental space once with a general theory of relativity! Interestingly, whenever anyone is asked publicly for opinions on drug addiction, homosexuality, pedophilia, or theory of relativity, everyone immediately knows everything about it, as if they were all addicts and gays and pedophiles and theoretical physicists. I know almost nothing about this because I am neither a drug addict nor a homosexual, nor a pedophile, nor a professor of physics. I first encountered the theory of relativity in high school and then I read about it and here I will explain how I understood it: Digging through the theoretical physics of his time, Einstein dug up "Lorentz transformations" and built "Special Theory of Relativity" on them. It turned out that this theory "holds the water", so in the rapture of success and based on his "happiest thought in life" that there is no gravity at all, he also launched the "General Theory of Relativity", which was embraced by the "popularizers of science" and who from theory made their "business". And as is usually the case, the inventor was often unaware of what he had actually found. In 1927, the famous physicist and philosopher Heisenberg, introduced to the world his "Theory of Uncertainty" as a natural law, claiming that we cannot simultaneously accurately measure the position and velocity of a particle, because it is a dynamic and statistical problem and because our methods of measurement are such that they simultaneously disturb the position and velocity of the measured particle. This ingenious and crystal clear idea was immediately accepted by most physicists, but not by Albert Einstein, because he could not accept the idea that something "could not" be done. Therefore, Einstein "pushed with all four" to disprove this theory, without even being aware that as early as 1915, with his "Special Theory of Relativity", he actually confirmed and supplemented the same theory, adding: that apart from being unable to accurately determine the position and velocity of a particle, likewise, when we are forced to do so (and always are!), we measure "with an error" equal to (1- (v/c)2)0.5 , depending on the relative velocity (v) of the inertial system in which we are measuring - AND THAT'S ALL! It would be foolish and unscientific to say that in an inertial system, depending on its velocity, units of mass, length and time change, and that objects, space and time deform depending on the direction and speed of the system. Soon, Einstein himself realized this, as well as the fact that his "General Theory of Relativity" was "nonsense squared" because it violated almost every law of physics. But why deny what is selling very well? Well, man has to live - from something! So every honor and glory to Mr. Einstein but save us God from all the "popularisers of science" and physics professors who don't know physics!