StringJunky

This was the essence of the OP.

Yes, I agree, I suppose this subject is quite closely associated with the "What is America's biggest problem?" thread, as a possible cause.

This post was inspired by the death of Antonin Scalia and the apparent overt political leanings of his profession in the US which can ultimately decide policy. I'd like to focus on the weight the judiciary carries in political policy via test cases. I found this UK article about the appointment of a then-new UK Supreme Court judge in 2011. He had a lot to say about the importance of the judiciary's influence on government policy. Do you think that this approach that government should make policy and not by judges? Here's the thrust of what I'm on about. It's worth reading the page for more detail: Note the difference (bolded) between the required political impartiality of judges in the UK vs their American counterparts, who wear their affiliation like a banner.

OK.

Nice. What was his part in the project? I quickly read up on him that he's a GR maths specialist.

In the same sense that a magnetic field is not material, for example, but is measurable, and the same for energy. I should make a thread about it if it still bugs you.

I learnt it from you about energy-density distribution.. It took me a long time to get my head around the fact that it's not material.

Spacetime, I might be wrong, is a mapping of energy-density distribution around masses and between masses. Ripples in spacetime from a BH merger describes a particular energy-density pattern and propagation

Does it help towards setting limits on the dimensions of the granularity of space for quantum purposes?

I find it all amazing. The signal and it's visual interpretation is so clear for amateurs like myself. There's an explanation of the animation if anyone wants a bit more detail. Click "Show more" under the video at this LInK. Does this help pave the way for a better quantum description as well?

Nice animation. Note how the event is correlated with the signal trace at the bottom through time.

Umpteen million people are probably thinking the same.

All Hail Albert!

I was idealistic and naive once. Gilead, Valeant, - Drug prices; Google, Apple et al -endemic tax "efficiencies"; Volkswagen; device manipulation etc. The corporate rot is coming at us like pent up diarrhoea.... the emerging list is getting very long.

True, can't argue with that. In the UK the Liberal Democrats (centrist between Labour and Conservative) have pushed for PR since I can remember but the electorate here seems to prefer a first-past-the-post system. We don't tend to get major reversals of policy with each party that's elected though... it's more subtle.

Proportional representation would probably lead to a slower pace of change.

Are you reasonably confident that they exist?

One could verify this by a surprise compulsory search of said politicians pockets for poppers!

Whether the words are spoken or written you still have to digest and absorb what has been said and, with science, you are only going to get so far without maths;. this will always be your limitation, no matter how good you are, I think. I think you are looking at many years of concerted effort to 'get used to' the hard stuff like GR, QM etc... there are no complete classical equivalents that we can use to visualise at this level. The other thing is scientific knowledge is in constant flux, scientists have to be in this state to. I wouldn't let it get you down, as long as you enjoy it and find it interesting and useful that's all that matters I think Richard Feynman once said nobody really understands QM.

Very good. An influential proportion of Americans need to realise that no country, like no person, is an island that can act or be affected without consequence to themselves, or them to other nations. It's becoming quite clear that those formerly isolated nations, Russia and China, are gradually acknowledging ,via their responses to events, that they too are not islands.

He's displaying a form arrogant ignorance which I think seems to be a popular approach amongst. many Republicans and probably others with different politics.. If one is a devout, true-believer (in anything), how can one be any more than that?

'Universe' means everything that exists... there can only be one.

The intellectual world is your oyster with the internet, and a fast enough connection. No need for tele. I've done without it since 2004. Being deaf, I prefer the written word to spoken so I can get away with a quite slow connection. To much of the viewing time nowadays is polluted interspersed by adverts and, as such, not amenable to an uninterrupted learning experience imo.

What are pants, as opposed to those you wear with a formal jacket...aren't they the same? As you probably know, pants in the UK are underwear.

Pure science: I think he means there's a rational or mundane explanation for what is observed