geordief

Yes it was very tangential ,I know. I have that bee in my bonnet and it gets out now and then.

I think I was addressing the joke by J.C.MacSwell actually. He was using the bad reputation of politicians as a prop for his joke and I was objecting.to that.

Or "misunderstandably"? Swipes at politicians at large can be cheap and lazy shots in my book.

I am not well versed in American history but the present political divide between the "two tribes" (Reps and Dems) seems a little different from the geographical differences brought up by GW (although the Dems are stronger on the E/W Coasts of course). I find myself wishing for a new divide between young and old where the old should learn a few new manners and get off the proverbial jon since the young ,at this stage have a clearer stake in the well being of the country -they ,and their children are in it for the long haul. Cannot be confident how beneficial such a theoretical transfer of influence would actually be but it would surely address climate change policy ,which I place at the top of the list of the current "derelictions of duty"

There has to be some rationale.It feels like collective dereliction of duty to me. Can Congress address that now ? Will the Senate object?

Is that new information? I thought it had been noted around the time? He also tears up documents doesn't he? The Repubs are OK with all that and put no pressure on him to desist from that behaviour? Is it his right as President to do that?

Bad comedy. I only linked it to highlight the redaction issue.But "Russian Vice-President Donald Trump" is quite close to the bone although it should more appropriately perhaps read "American Presidential puppeter VPutin"

His legal team would like to redact Mueller's final report https://www.theroot.com/rudy-giuliani-who-married-to-his-cousin-believes-trum-1831679592 Not sure about that source but this issue was being discussed last night after the NYTimes story broke. Seems ironic that anyone near Trump could bring up National Security but there you have it.

@Strange Yes I see my idea of "geometry" was very limited. As for the holographic principle,is it just "some information" and not "all or any"? And is it just 2d》3d or (as I had supposed ) 2d+1》3d+1 ? Regarding the entropy of a BH would this be one of the few object's where entropy can apparently be measured in a reliable way?(from my limited acquaintance with entropy it seems like a roller coaster of a phenomenon ,decreasing and increasing alternately)

Not this one (having just gone through the list of topics I have started). It seems like it could be a very fundamental question bearing in mind how some people seem to be speculating that the entire universe could be a holographic projection of an arrangement of 0s and 1s on the surface of a sphere (unless I have wildly misunderstood that). Anyway ,is there a freestanding entity called "mathematics" and a corresponding freestanding entity such as "geometry" or are the two joined at the hip or hips,"bleeding into each other"? The thought crossed my mind that mathematics could be like the source code to geometry similar to how the page on this screen is made visible by the html code "behind" the screen. It would be interesting to have a few examples of that. He expressed mathematical ideas in that way or his ideas more generally? Symmetry is closely connected to reflections in a mirror isn't it? Can Geometry be called mathematics using light as the tool of communication? Is maths a eunuch in that regard?

I understand all Geometry can be represented in a mathematical way. But the two are clearly different.Is Geometry a (sub?) branch of Mathematics or could it be the other way around? Could all Mathematics even be represented geometrically perhaps? Can ideas muscle in on the act if the "Materialists"* are allowed full license? What I am trying to ask in first place is "How,in essence is Geometry different from Maths ?" *if that is the right term for those who claim that all thoughts and ,by extension ideas can be reduced to their physical interactions...

Just the fact that all observers in all inertial frames will measure the same speed of propagation of any given light wave. Alternative to Minkowski spacetime diagrams I think (not necessarily successful but possibly different approaches) Coincidentally I have very recently come across one which I am personally unable to judge the worth of https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-speed-of-light-limited-Why-can-it-not-go-greater-than-its-approximate-velocity-3-10-8/answer/Eltjo-Haselhoff?share=ecbf35b4&srid=u1LaJ ''...which might serve as an example ,no matter what ever flaws ,obvious or not it might have. By geometries I will attempt " visual representations of the mathematical relationships between points in space or events in spacetime. " In particular as they evolve in time and incorporating points of observation from different (moving) points in the manifold (if my terminology is at all correct)

for describing the invariance of light. As well as I understand (which is poorly) when the invariance of light was discovered (by MM) there were existing geometries that were able to cope with it(sitting there more or less waiting for their relevance to be noticed) Suppose they had not been around are there any other methods that could be used to put down on paper what was being observed (in a predictive way)? Did anyone make any rudimentary attempts before Minkowski spacetime blew them out of the water,so to speak? I don't have any suggestions myself as I am very unskilled in the first place....

If I have correctly understood then, the degree of saturation possible increases exponentially with temperature even though relative humidity stays constant at 50% Does this mean that the expected humidity on any particular day will also increase exponentially with temperature.?(since the upper bound does so) Would it also be correct that ,whilst the greenhouse effect predicted already incorporates the level of water vapour concentration ,nonetheless the rather large ,non linear increase in humidity might cause problems over above simple temperature levels? (eg health problems due to inability to sleep in vulnerable sections of the population)

Would its effects be especially noticeable during the night? Would a generalized increase in temperature lead to local pockets with high humidity leading to very hot nights that might prevent sleep without air conditioning?

Sorry I missed your reply.Could those effects be of any consequence or would they be minimal for the most part?

Getting "real" , how can it be objectively verified that he actually said one or the other words ? (I understand even lip readers disagree) Fwiw I don't believe him but what is the point of this debate on such shifting foundations? If I wanted to criticise JC (and as a public figure it is fair to do so) I would want to be very sure of my ground first.

I am interested in how many people see him mouthing "stupid woman" and how many see him mouthing "stupid people" I am no fan of Corbyn and so perhaps that might explain in part why I "hear" "stupid woman" (wish fulfillment on my part , but that is what I hear) How many people (who have a modicum of lip reading ability) actually "hear" him say "stupid people"? For what it is worth I would forgive him saying "stupid woman" ** but only if he was to admit it. If he is only pretending to have said "stupid people" then he is (per my prejudice) a twofaced lowlife and a coward. So who hears "stupid people" so that I can retract if it becomes plausible that that is what he actually said. I have said (much) worse in the heat of the moment (even in the cold light of day). EDIT: It is 14 seconds into the clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1edfyaJ4YrA Does hr mouth the first "p" in people or the first "w" in woman? I still think it is "woman".

What if the gas was composed of different elements with different properties such as perhaps density or charge?

I think (revisiting your first response to the OP) that my implied idea of two essentially homogeneous elements of a system does not really fly. but that , if it did then their state of equilibrium would (as per Swansont?) have to be determined relative to the CoM of the system as a whole (whether the CoM of the two elements was in motion wrt the overall system's CoM) The system's CoM would be changing all the time unless the system was completely uniform. Looking at my later replies I think (embarrassingly) it is best to ignore them now ( as I hadn't taken on board the importance of the CoM of the system as a whole (or any reference frame at all to be honest) I hope that I may have a better idea of (dis) equilibrium in terms of simple motion now. But if I have not then I might have to withdraw from my own thread so as not to muddy the waters. I have had a day to think about it now and if this is still confused then as I say it would be best if I butt out.... Perhaps I used terms inappropriately. When I said "global" I was referring just to a finite system (not the existing universe)... "global" in terms of the system as opposed to its pairs of sub-elements. Would it now be possible/useful to describe such a system in terms of the state of equilibrium of these sub elements to its CoM ?

I have to go out quite soon today . Perhaps it will give me a chance to mull it over

Subject to external energetic input (from outside the system)

If the system is dynamic in an unbalanced way would that mean that a CoM could not be determined? Would such imbalances tend to disappear over time without external input?

A is the relative motion between any two elements of the system and B is the same relative motion measured subsequently. All these measurements can't be measured at the "same time" of course and so the delays might have to be factored in to create any global measurement. Would that work? A is the relative motion between any two elements of the system and B is the same relative motion measured subsequently. All these measurements can't be measured at the "same time" of course and so the delays might have to be factored in to create any global measurement.

Well ,I was thinking along the lines of relative motion. If the system is comprised of a finite number of elements then the relative motion of each element with any (and all) other element can be summed globally to produce a number. (and various sets of "sub numbers") Can this/these number/s be used to give a measure of the disequilibrium of the system as a whole? Perhaps by comparing successive measurements in time? If we release a group of objects ,in space say they will tend to move relative to each other and it may be possible to affect this relative motion by an energetic input from a source that is outside the system ,introducing disequilibrium. If this equilibrium could be measured ,would it be any kind of a function of the energy of that input (the direction would presumably also be important)