geordief

Would an electronic count in tandem have cleared that matter up at that well remembered time? (I am not suggesting electronic counts should not be used but that a manual count should be readily available when appropriate -maybe they already are.)

Seems to me that ,if the Dems have not asked for a recount there is likely to be strong (circumstantial?) evidence that there has been no foul play this time. Taking a different tack I cannot for the life of me understand why a manual recount should not be undertaken as an automatic procedure. In Ireland ,some 10 or so years ago electronic equipment was bought to count the votes as a new procedure. The machines were never used as there was not enough public confidence in them ( they were eventually sold for a pittance and a loss) The recent and ongoing election in Ireland is being counted manually . Electronic voting is imo a disaster and should be supplemented (if not entirely supplanted) by manual counting .

Corruptus inteterruptus.

Would that also likely represent the overall population (on those platforms ,none of which I personally take part in) or just the political leanings of the "news influencers" in them?(do you think) Edit :males are more trusted as influencers,perhaps and they skewed right in this election?

In terms of technical ability?

Are you talking about Canada? I am not sure I follow your point. You don't think the "working class" seek to better their economic situation? That they remain "working class" even when they succeed in this? Are you talking about their self image ?

Yes ,I think I was perhaps thinking along those lines. I seem to want to describe or measure a "system as a whole" and am coming to the realization that a system may be the "sum" of its internal relationships and moreover the concept seems to run foul of the idea that there is no absolute time or space. Any system cannot be fixed -only approximated as such. Still ,with my solar system example of 1,2,3 states if the third system was disturbed by a massive black hole would we have no hesitation in agreeing that the change between 3 and 1 was greater than that between 2 and 1? We would have to show that one variable at a time and then stick them all together to model the system "as a whole"?

I wasn't sure where to post really but I often post in relativity and thought it might be quite close I am indeed worrying about where Earth is relative to Jupiter but I think you may be saying that the Sun's reference frame "includes" that information . Can we say that for a complete system it is possible to describe it by using any chosen reference point and that all the individual relationships can be bound up in that one reference point? From my lowly knowledge status I wonder whether I can doubt it (or if I have expressed myself at all cogently)

Your "abstract space" is that a timeless concept? Is my question ,then connected to entropy? Another example of two differing systems could be a shuffled pack of cards and ,in these cases I have feeling that entropy might be a method of comparing one arrangement of the cards versus another. Still ,my initial example specified that one arrangement derived from the other...so I think time entered the frame,unlike the pack of cards.

It could be ,on the macro level the arrangement of the solar system (discounting its position in the galaxy) We have some 10(?) main objects-planets (let's discount the Sun for simplicity ) At 12 midday our time the various planets are set out in an arrangement and 12 midnight we have a new arrangement At 12 midday the next day there is a third arrangement Calling the arrangents 1,2,3 can we measure how much 2 is changed from 1 and does 3 change from 1 to a greater degree? I am not sure whether or not the lapse of time enters into any calculation or whether the configurations "stand alone" as it were. I think it is unarguble that changes have happened but can we measure that change for the system as a whole or just by comparing individual components of one system against individual components of the other system.

Suppose we have 2 systems ,one of which derives from the other how can one measure the difference between them (the amount of "change")? Can we assume that the first system is comprised of n constituent parts and the other m constituent parts since these parts can interact and destroy/create themselves? Do we have to connect the two systems with an array of "lines of causality "?

Has there been any suggestion that a husband should be expected to vote in accordance with his wife's preferences?

Janus was giving the occasional Finish lesson (a semi blog) in the old thescienceforum.org website that folded this year. ...things move on.

Not weaving but draining.

That "ideology" would apply to any sub group of society an individual might identify with. They all seem to embody their own code of behaviour. I was just watching a documentary (Sam Willis) about the pirates in the Carribean and Africa who developed their own rules and apparently became something of an attractive counter culture in the 18th century Britain ("live a short but licentious life or a Puritanical one if you joined up with Captain Bart") https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Roberts https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qn3lr

I wonder what we would define as a moral decision or an admonition and when this could have first come into play as we evolved as a species. Is it by definition a kind of social contract and did it arise as some kind of an attempt to put on the record then ,that there are times when the short term benefit of a decision can lead to longer term harmful consequences? Whoever was responsible for "laying down" this new prescription for action (or their "disciples" ) may have felt the need to justify their advice to their more headstrong colleagues and (heaven forbid) invented an imaginary friend(conveniently dead ,possibly) who had told them this The rest ,as they say .. I also wonder if there is evidence of moral codes in other species that do not have the benefit of being able to record their conversations with each other.(ie all of them?)

Does the photon only "know" that the electric and the magnetic fields ** are interacting? (is that actually what the photon "is"?) Does that pass for change in its world? What can happen for the photon for this process itself to change? (can the photon "die"?) **is it important to distinguish between a "field as a set of measurements" and a field as a fundamental bedrock of nature? Are the two fields making up the photon's existence part of the wider universal electric and magnetic fields?

No it wasn't (but I am under no illusion as to how nonsensical my notion is) The jiggling was me imagining the whole universe moving left/right /up/down as the light was the only actor moving in a straight line .(is that a bit reminiscent of the world spinning around the famous ,presumably stationary bucket of water?) The e/m fields observation was an afterthought -or a second thought as to how they would seeem to the photon itself (wouldn't exist?) ps yes I think I understood that they were field strengths and not trajectories but would they exist for the photon? If there is no valid frame of reference for the photon does that mean we can't ask any questions as to what is going on there even if they seem ridiculous?

Would it rather see the world moving (jiggling) and itself just traveling in a "straight line"? Would it experience the alternating magnetic/electric fields or do they disappear in its "own frame"?

As they say ,it is the journey that counts more than the destination. One of our most rewarding activities is acquiring and assimilating new information. With this particular project there are likely to be endless detours and stopovers -if we can manage not to destroy ourselves as a species before we get anywhere along this particular path.

I understand that the "learning system" is made up of pairs of neurons. Do these neurons need to be located in proximity to each other or ste there pairs with "ends" at the opposite side of the brain? I wonder is the next step to digitise this representation and to stimulate it with diffferent inputs. I remember that film where Jeff Goldblum turns into a fly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fly_(1986_film)

I know that asking "why" is normally pointless but I have heard this "gravity is a source of gravity" thing before. I assume the maths dictate this but does this presumably verified fact tell us something about gravity and curved spacetime? Is there any particular insight involved in that finding?

Seems to be used but by geeky computer types. Can't find it in the online dictionary . But that was how I interpreted your typo (it felt jarring ,though) Seems like the "game" has moved along with commentators saying Netanyahu is exploiting the American election space and may have his eye on Iran (and his personal survival)

I think it is pie in the sky to assume that either side will fight with what they see as one hand behind their back. True ,there is the overarching aim of a peaceful cooperation but that is a long term process. You seem to be taking the "knife to a gunfight " analogy too literally.It applies to all parties to all conflicts. Indeed.I think that was Golda Meir's regret -that the Palestinians had forced Israel to abandon its ideal for the sake of its own survival (I forget the language she used) Trampling on others is what happens when paic spreads through a crowd.Maybe Israel is goung through the same process in a slower way If it fears for its very survival it is more difficult to expect what we would see as "civilized" behaviour Of course it needs "our" material and moral support but perhaps wishes it didn't.