Leaderboard

Going back to OP, fundamentally it means that ultimately power comes from the population. That could have many different means, but ultimately it requires the ability of the population to remove folks from power, if they so choose. There are challenges, of course and one of the key elements of democracy is that it relies on an informed public. It is no coincidence that controlling the flow of information is one of the key elements of any modern dictatorship. We had long discussions in the past on this forum on the dangers of media monopolies, mostly in conjunction with the Murdoch empire, but also the Koch brothers etc. which were actively working to create certain narratives to control public opinion resulting in folks voting against their interest (including on issues such as climate change which has gotten so bad that it is now impossible to ignore, but also aspects such as health care, taxation and so on). This issue has now been supercharged with social media, which in theory should democratize flow of information, but instead resulted in a fracture on how folks perceive reality. While media conglomerates put a lot of efforts in "spin", it turns out that you do not actually need to that. Rather you just need a stupid algorithm to push falsehoods and magically it will become reality for a lot of folks. Under these circumstances I am not sure how democracy is supposed to function.

It's Florida. The children have seen one another already in the schoolyard and on the street; they know that some of them are different colours and genders. Dick and Jane were ultra white, because that was the author's world, but Leroy and Juanita and Aaron might well have got the impression that they were not welcome On Cherry Street, or in that classroom. And they would have been correct! I'm not sure mathematically accurate facts count as sliding in indoctrination, any more than train schedules or mortgage rates do. Examples from real life - the real, daily lives of the people taking the course - seem to me fair game. The unconscious bias graph, I do have some trouble with in elementary school. But by the time they're old enough to enlist, they should be aware of the inequalities and tensions in their country. Politically charged material that's banned from the classroom tends to resolve itself on the barricades. Germany wasn't any more special then than Florida and Hungary are now. There was a terrifying Doctor Who episode about an alternative England. Humans go 'round in cycles. My SO was holding forth on the madness of our age and how it may never have been this bad before, so I looked out a documentary on the late Middle Ages. There have never been so many of us before to go mad all at once. I'd like to see the Romantics back before I die, but it ain't gonna happen.

Yes I agree. However it is normal in most western countries for illustrations in children's books to show a mixture of sexes and ethnicities, simply to make sure all the children see the book, and the subject, as being "for them". Especially perhaps with maths, as this has some baggage of -ve stereotyping, viz. a history of being seen as "nerdy", or "for boys" and so forth. So if that's all it is, then it's disgraceful that books are withdrawn for it.

I have to say that putting politically-charged subjects into class lessons that don't require them does annoy me. When one starts sliding such materials into coursework, it smacks of indoctrination.

Constant means it has the same numerical value everywhere, whereas invariant means that it doesn’t change when going into another reference frame. The speed of light depends on the medium, so it’s value is always invariant, but constant only within the same medium. I don’t know what you mean by this...? It’s obviously not the same everywhere, since it depends on the distribution of sources. \[c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_{0} \epsilon_{0}}}\]

This should be played following each time Trump speaks, especially to large crowds:

I’m not either. I wrote and deleted and wrote and deleted a few times. This isn’t entirely on topic nor a good reply to your excellent comment, but it at least touches on some themes that have been in the aether for me. Voting is secure, but voters minds are not. The electorate has been hacked. I believe the “malware” involves telling more stories about what “better” looks like / could look like… then singing and repeating those stories to EVERYONE within earshot. Even the most blinkered fools among us cemented into echo chambers of their own making can still listen to and hear and engage with a song. Songs that don’t just get sung, but felt. Deep inside. Songs that loosen dormant childhoods and dreams past their Sell By dates. And if sung right and about the right things, those blinkered fools may hear new sounds that break through their chamber of echos. If the pictures we paint with the brush of ideas happens to pop just right, then they might even start tapping their foot along with us, along to the beat of our songs… but even if the songs are not very good, we need to do more singing with each other, proverbially and publicly. We need to describe how the future can be better, how we truly can make “better” a reality if we agree enough is enough, join hands, and choose to share a common purpose. We need to envision how truly far we can go if we’d simply stop flinging feces and actively choose instead to work, sing, and dance… together. tl;dr: Change hearts and minds. Grow the numbers. Organize. Make it happen. It’s been working for the bad guys, and there are fewer of them than us.

Much of the major North Sea Gasfield infrastructure was installed in the late seventies and designed for a 25 year lifespan. At a pinch, much will last a decade or so longer, but particularly in a marine environment, corrosion will eventually take its toll. So if a 30+ year old facility is decommissioned, there's no point in mothballing it for possible future reuse. It's far more economic to just make it safe and let it rot. In practice, reopening an abandoned field requires a pretty well total infrastructure rebuild.

If they want more energy, cheaply and fast, they ought to be erecting wind turbines and encouraging farmers to put solar panels in the fields instead of trying to ban the practice. That could make a difference within 18 months, if they can bypass the planning process for an energy emergency. But they are far right fuckwits, unfortunately. (Rees-Mogg as Energy Minister? Seriously?) My understanding is that some abandoned N Sea fields - which would be economic once more at today's stratospheric prices - could be restarted a lot faster than 5 years, but I don't have chapter and verse, I'm afraid.

To some extent the embrace of anarchism (in the less bomb-wielding sense being discussed here) is dependent on aspects of personality that are not homogeneous in human society. While some people do value a high level of freedom and personal autonomy (and, if they are disciplined in their view, are willing to accept the decrease in personal security and increased social clash of values that might accompany this), there are others who crave a high level of "law and order" and a simplified nonpluralistic culture that has to be imposed by an authoritarian leader. They may crave a society that is parental in its control and top-down decision-making. Right-wing evangelical Christians, for example, often express the desire to have all submit to a divine will and be ruled by a theocratic ruler who will implement this. They wish for a State that acts in loco parentis for the same reason they prefer a religion whose authority structure is modeled (as Freud and many others pointed out) on that of childhood. Many people are, contra Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, quite willing to give up some liberty for the sake of security. Then there is the entrepreneurial wealth-seeking personality, which values freedom to conduct business more highly than other freedoms (e.g. social freedoms associated with the Left/Liberal platforms), and is fine with the cognitive dissonance of applauding regulatory freedom while stomping down social freedoms that might threaten their quest for personal enrichment and power (you want labor to stay cheap, cowed by police power, and not be afflicted with too much thinking or exploration of heterodox economic ideas). They may be anarchic in business practices, but authoritarian when it comes to squelching calls for cleaning up their effluents and fumes - often the first to support harsh laws against public demonstrations or class-action suits. However all these billiard balls of temperament collide with each other, it seems to me that truly successful Liberalism lies in the protection of freedom of discourse in education, freedom of the press (and protection of the press from predatory capitalist control), religious freedom, and the preservation of an intellectual life that can subject authority in any form to constant questioning and dissection of its stated aims. That questioning of received wisdom, of authority, seems to me to be at the heart of healthy anarchism, and must be protected by some kind of constitutional structure that can't be altered on a whim, or degraded because the world feels more dangerous than usual. So there's that seeming paradox: good anarchy requires a hardened bombproof structure of law.

Radial mixing of two fluids moving coaxially in a pipe is a function of the flow regime. In laminar flow, the dominant mechanism is molecular diffusion which ends up with a form of the heat equation to solve. in the turbulent regime, it's eddy diffusion, and that results in a Lagrangian function. The classic text covering this is 'Transport Phenomena' by Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot. Though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_diffusion gives a reasonable introduction. In practical terms, chemical engineers generally default to allowing a conservative mixing length of 100 pipe diameters before presuming the two gases are well mixed. (Because the maths is a lot easier). If there isn't room for so much straight pipe, installing two 90 degree pipe elbows in different planes immediately downstream of the injection point has been used to justify dropping the mixing length to perhaps 30 or 40D. Alternatively, as @exchemist notes, there are a number of designs of inline mixing device that can be used.

I wasn't explicitly excluded. Does this mean that henceforth, I am? All right. This was directed at me. It was not clear, no. Now I know. And, yes, some citizens do desire revolution, and they have a definite goal in mind, so it's no use trying to convince them of the stabilizing influence of democracy.

I've had glimpses of other examples. The objectionable material seems to be in the form of illustrations to accompany arithmetic problems. The line-drawings or coloured cartoons show children of different ethnic backgrounds and sexes playing together or co-operating in some way. De Santis and his hate-full ilk are afraid Floridian children may be infected with subliminal tolerance. And there was also that one (count it - 1) example of a graph showing racial prejudice in demographic groups.

So do the equations of General Relativity premise on the propagation of time being constant since the Big Bang? That is, the premise that the axes of time are uniform between t=0 and t=infinity. Is there any logical or reasonable basis upon which to assume that the propagation of time is a constant since the Big Bang? If we accept that the spacetime continuum experiences a stretching of its axes when observing space expansion, why should we assume that its only the axes of space that is stretched, and that the axes of time remain uniform?

Bolded quote And modest with it. I haven't presumed anything. Bbolded quotes I very much doubt this claim, especially since it is offered with no support whatsoever ans just so easy to find numerous counterexamples. Do you understand the geometry of Scottish Dancing or the placement of Tiles, or the arrangement of atoms in molecules ? In other words the geometry of Juxtaposition ? How about Pick's theorem ? Or Mandelbrot's question "How long is the coastline of Britain ?" Bolded quotes Really ? Bolded quotes Perhaps, but not interested in the sincere offerings of others. Good of you to say so So why do you write so disparagingly about them ? This was later shown to be undecidable. That is the both the hypothesis and its negation are consistent with the standard axioms of set theory. (Godel) Is the the mathematical continuity you mean ? First bolding You need to be aware of the very very very great difference between the meaning of Field in Mathematics and in Physics. In Mathematics a Field is a set of entities subject to two binary operations and certain other conditions. In Physics a Fields is a set of elements that are either arguments or values of a function. The union of the range and the domain of a function. Second bolding Of course it is not absurd to ask. In fact most consider asking to be excellent practice. I have tried to offer the beginnings of some answers so it is most disappointing for me to find that you are not receptive to discussion about the topic and only seem to wish to pronounce your views as though no one else has ever had anything worthwhile to say. Others have found them even more upsetting. However I have always treated your posts as those of a thinking adult. Here is some modern (only 55 years old) geometry that is one way to introduce the answers in Mathematics you claim to seek. And yes, it is Scottish Dancing. A final question to think about. You keep mentioning "Natural" - Natural Geometry, Natural Science, Natural Order etc What would then be Unnatural Geometry, Unnatural Science, Unnatural Order ?

I find Barbour useful, even when disagreeing with him, on what time could possibly be other than a perceived rate of change that's essentially an illusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour Warning: May contain traces of nut.