swansont

We have to go by their actions, which all can observe. Who is “they” in your scenario?

It can’t disappear if something always has to exist.

But as physics isn’t claiming to know what happened that first instant, it doesn’t need to prove anything false. What we know is that “nothing” is unstable under conditions we observe, so if that applied to the origin of everything, there is no conflict that needs to be explained away. Whereas “something always existed” raises the question of why a big bang happened, and happened the way it did.

! Moderator Note So long as you are soliciting investment, the answer is no to your request to keep this post

If you are at rest in a gravitational field, you are not in an inertial frame.

The problem isn't with logic. The disagreement is with your premise, which, of course, isn't something that you have shown to be true.

It opens for me, so I can't help you. But if you are interested, you can search for Frank Wilczek and the phrase nothing is unstable That's not how science works. You go where the evidence takes you. Which means science isn't going to be able to answer the question. Which is preferable to just making up a simple answer we like or that comforts us; that's what religion is for.

The thing that strikes me is that the right to vote is implied but not stated; the mention in Article I is the congressional powers, which is OK for the main part of the Constitution, since that's what it does (enumerated powers and limits on powers) but there is no mention in the Bill of Rights. It's only until we get to amendments that were added that we get the suggestion that voting is a right, and these only came about because the right was being denied to certain groups of people. Maybe what we need is a new amendment: The right of the people to vote shall not be infringed. Clear and to the point. Not that it wouldn't keep people from messing with it, but it would make it tougher

Unlike your situation where you can't provide a source for your quote, I can: Frank Wilczek https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-physics-of-nothing/ Some interest in Cosmology, to be sure, but we've got things covered after ~10^-34 sec or so. Most of physics gets along quite well without the answer to this particular problem, and the interested parties would likely want a physics answer, rather than a philosophical one. You need more than logic if it's going to be physics. What is the evidence of something always existing?

Interesting that this make Obama the villain... Also the ignorance of fact; Obama signed fewer EOs (276) than W did (291), and, as it turns out, Trump has signed almost as many (207) in less than half the time. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders The reason I asked is that it's not in scare quotes and the tone of another part — "Trump openly extorts" — is decidedly not from their point of view.

So there could have been a law that said something can come from nothing. Or it could have come from a consequence of something coming from nothing (that "nothing" is an unstable condition) So how do you get away from the philosophy and get to the science of this? You posted this in "physics"

Note: The topic of this thread is moderation; even though the context of the linked article is about Trump being banned from twitter, that's a politics discussion and following up on those details is off-topic here. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210108/17022646023/not-easy-not-unreasonable-not-censorship-decision-to-ban-trump-twitter.shtml Interesting observations, and ones that I think are true, in my experience here We get complaints from some of our visitors about how they've been treated when they run afoul of the rules, and like this says, every case is different. The rules may seem vague because we need leeway to use judgement. Specific rules leave more opportunity for finding loopholes. We update the rules on occasion when we apply what we've learned, and as some people try and exploit gaps and blind spots.

The Constitution says that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th amendment), or sex (19th amendment), or by the presence of a poll tax (24th amendment; only applies to federal elections) Further, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" That was the context of the voting rights act, and presumably there could be laws drawn up to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised on these bases. (race and color, since I don't think that there are precincts where there's much of a gender disparity) - such as ensuring that areas with a large non-white population has the same access as anyone else - and passing laws making sure that requiring voter ID or other limitations do not become a poll tax (be it cost or difficulty in getting access) Congress could presumably establish a federal standard for voting based on these rights. Article I Section 4 (emphasis added) The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. So it would appear that congress does have power to do some legislating, in regard to federal elections.

Is there any evidence such a state existed?

Mainstream, basically, means you can find it in a textbook that is used in accredited universities. The aether only show up in an historical context of a disproven model.

America’s? Did you mean “republicans’ “? I don’t think those who are in Trump’s orbit hold to this idea. They act like they are owed success (some) Business owners: Pay workers? That’s money out of MY POCKET! The folks who are against immigration don’t want to keep working-class wages up. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to do this, and yet...nada I think you are proceeding from a false premise.

You could take him at his word on his reasoning. He explained how he thought about what an observer on one beam of light would see if looking at another, and how to reconcile the thought with Maxwell’s equations

Excuse me? Tyranny?

A universe from nothing is the opposite position.

Who, and under what context? Can you find a mainstream physics citation that list this as a postulate? A shaky premise, that you are taking as true, instead of conditionally.

Never know? No, not really. SR preceded GR. Expansion of the universe wasn’t involved and there was no evidence of it. We have a timeline of events. Making up an alternate history doesn’t fly.

Yes. The press has been guilty of this as well. Case in point - The impeachment that took place was an example of something that happened behind the scenes, and people latched on to it. Other stuff? Meh. Having said that, Trump’s reshuffling of the Pentagon and not immediately allowing national guard response are things to look at, conspiracy-wise. There are likely things to be found beyond what happened in plain sight. Well, the only way to mess with the voting was to go into the Capitol building, where the votes were being counted.

“may have been inspired by the universal recession velocities” doesn’t fit the timeline “In 1912, Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (the obsolete term for spiral galaxies) and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

But wholly consistent with Electrodynamics, which is what prompted his investigation, and gave rise to new physics

Eventually, sure. The immediate issue is removing a dangerous man from power. You don’t need to know if there was a hidden conspiracy to commit sedition when he called for sedition in plain sight.