Then when you scratch the surface, military is financed by the financiers. Financiers and military are not directly linked to democracy, and that is the problem of our democracy since French revolution. People never really got free. — thegreathoo

Well if you can provide some circumstantial evidence at least then we can accept this. In any case NOT democracy.

Further examining the link between best countries to live in and most democratic countries:

Best countries to live in:

• Switzerland
• Canada
• Germany
• UK
• Japan

Democracy Index

• Norway _ Constitutional Monarchy
• Iceland
• Sweden - Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• New Zealand - Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Denmark - Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy
• Ireland
• Canada - Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy

Switzerland : 9
Germany: 13
UK: 14
Japan: 23

One problem with a modern Democracy, is too many people are vulnerable to propaganda, allowing others to think for them — wellwisher

But this never explains the block vote. The people who will always vote Republican or always vote Democrat, or perhaps always vote Trump. Propaganda will only apply to swing voters, I would think.

If Democracy is dying, the presupposes it was alive and well. Was it?

After seeing many a video and article about Communism and Capitalism, for example, I have newly found it useful to ask, what would a perfect system look like? The idea borrows from the engineering field where a 'loss-less' 'frictionless' machine is used as a base, and then the efficiency of an existing machine is calculated against this. Also, prototypes of a machine, for example, a jet engine, may not work, or worse still, engage in runaway behaviour and have to be shut down completely? Chilling familiar? So why not work on perfecting the machine, as suggested?

What will a perfect democracy look like, for example in the U.S.A of 2018, or maybe in 2020? I am sure we can all make a few suggestions as to what democracy is not, and remove these elements from out perfect machine.

I believe we lack the mechanical precision with which to discuss democracy.

This seems useful:

Despite the considerable democratic momentum in 1991, Schmitter and Karl cautioned against the high expectations often placed on new democracies due to popular assumptions about expected results.

“Democratization will not necessarily bring in its wake economic growth, social peace, administrative efficiency, political harmony, free markets, or ‘the end of ideology.’… Instead, what we should be hoping for is the emergence of political institutions that can peacefully compete to form governments and influence public policy, that can channel social and economic conflicts through regular procedures, and that have sufficient linkages to civil society to represent their constituencies and commit them to collective courses of action.”

By focusing on the flexible political mechanisms that democracy provides, Schmitter and Karl demonstrated that the ultimate benefit of democratic governance is the creation of a system where clear rules, accountability, and citizen participation provide opportunities for self-correction. Today, as authoritarian political leaders around the world argue that democracy produces the risk of chaos, Schmitter and Karl’s analysis serves as a reminder that democracy offers the best chance for balancing societal tensions over the long term.

So this is the perfect democracy. Can we exclude from this perfect Democracy the following:

• campaign financing by special interests and lobbying by special interest groups
• billion dollar secret defence black projects
• unbalancing the Supreme Court by appointing conservative or liberal judges

I join the conversation as one highly unimpressed with Democracy. Look at the map again. Which countries are the best countries to live in? Not the most democratic, but of course it depends on which country is best to live in for each person, it is different for each person.

One of the biggest problems of Democracy is catering to two different populations with differing mindsets and different expectations. For example say 49% of the population wants a particular result in an election, and 51% wants the opposite, for example voting for candidate A and candidate B in a presidential election. Obviously 49% of the people will be disappointed.

And is it not about results: approval ratings show that 35% of the population still approves of candidate A after the election and after the term ends, that still means that 35% were happy with the results of their vote, and 65% were not. The 35% were happy to live in a country ruled by candidate A whether or not it was a 'good' decision or good for the country or not. The question is then how to get 100% of the vote or better still, a 100% approval rating? Is this possible? Well if millions of people are unhappy with the direction taken purely on ideological terms, what is the use of Democracy in making people happy and serving their needs? They can never be 100% satisfied so what is the point of it all, really?

People are happier in some dictatorships and enjoy a better standard of living as well.

That link, though obvious, yielded something more useful than the last time I looked at it. The Butterfly Effect in action?

Right at the bottom of the page, this occurs:

"Chaos theory can be applied in psychology. For example, in modeling group behavior in which heterogeneous members may behave as if sharing to different degrees what in Wilfred Bion's theory is a basic assumption, the group dynamics is the result of the individual dynamics of the members: each individual reproduces the group dynamics in a different scale, and the chaotic behavior of the group is reflected in each member.[99]"

Difficult to understand in English, for me at least.

Then there is this, more along the lines of what I expected:

http://www.societyforchaostheory.org/ndpls/

I found some related web pages, did not read fully, but interesting:

https://everydaypowerblog.com/2017/05/28/use-butterfly-effect-create-change/

http://www.positivearticles.com/Article/Using-The-Butterfly-Effect-To-Change-Your-Life/29632

http://www.logicalspiritualism.com/Default.aspx?action=news-view&id=37

For example, assume that the only way to protect democracy is to prevent a totalitarian politician from being elected, and in order to do so, you must either assassinate that politician, or postpone the election, allowing some time for the revolutionary fervor of that politician's supporters to die down — Pneumenon

Supporters of any politician have a democratic right to vote for that person, even if he is a 'totalitarian politician'. It's all in the game. I would think that assassination is not part of a democratic system. I would say that such a thing breaks democracy.

The other point I wish to make is that 'you can't make a good machine with bad parts'. Is there democracy among thieves? In a nation divided by racial prejudice or even views of political systems? If you are talking about democracy among different tribes vying for control, then it becomes a sort of collective mob rule.

Ah yes, but that was not a popular vote, in the sense of it being nation-wide, like the census. It appears a small mob forced a politician to bend to their requests. Sounds familiar - democracy it is not.

Interesting links. There are quotes such as 'Einstein was right" as if it some sort of a validation to prop up Einstein. I don't hear anyone say "Newton was right" when a rocket takes off.

How widely accepted is the above view? When we hear that a certain experiment 'proves relativity' we get the impression that scientists are one step closer to establishing relativity as absolute reality. Is this generally the popular view, what do you think?

If you use synchronized clocks, it is a measurement. If I know light speed, I can compute the time and don't need the clocks. But synchronization is frame dependent. — noAxioms

So in the above example, it is possible to synchronize clocks, and it is possible to measure the one way speed of light?

We got about one digit of accuracy with that setup. — noAxioms

I'm curious what percentage accuracy?

Essentially you need to tell me the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and given that we know light speed, we can compute (not measure) the time it takes for light to make the trip in the frame you've specified — noAxioms

Why "compute" and not "measure"?

Essentially you need to tell me the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and given that we know light speed, we can compute (not measure) the time it takes for light to make the trip in the frame you've specified. This is obviously not a measurement of light speed since we're assuming a constant for it in our calculation. — noAxioms

If we have the spatial separation between events E1 and E2, and know the times at E1 and E2, we can calculate the light speed. (not measure?). Why assume it a constant when we are trying to measure it in the first place? Now I know that the clocks need to be synchronized, or the other option is slowly moved apart. If we are able to have control over how fast the clocks are moved apart, we can establish the error bounds due to non-synchronization and take this into account.

I believe there have been some studies done in this area.

The inadequacy of which demonstrates that there is no underlying reality for this conceptual structure. — Metaphysician Undercover

Any further reference on this? Feynman's lectures are quite insightful, it seems.

You're describing objects, not events. The above setup needs a defined frame to take a measurement, and none has been specified. So for instance, the D1 detector doesn't know when the light was emitted and thus how long it took to get there or how far it traveled. That needs definition, so the measurement of elapsed time can be taken. You've not provided that — noAxioms

OK, but the distance and time to D1 is not needed, just take the event consisting of light reaching D1 and the event of light reaching event D2, and measure the speed in between.

I am simply looking at the previous explanations as well.

Relativity is not a statement about the mechanism of light getting from here to there. It is about the geometric implications that directly follow from a fixed light speed. — noAxioms

This does clarify things somewhat, however questions remain:

What is the underlying method of light transmission that relativity ultimately describes? With Newton, you had a mechanism - photons, if relativity is a description of reality, then what is the underlying reality?

Let's take the first instance. You have a two detectors, that measure when light passes one and then when light passes the other, D1 and D2. You then have light emitted from an emitter of course, from somewhere outside the detector, along the same axis as D1 and D2.

E >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>D1>>>>>>>D2>>>>>>>

It makes no difference if the emitter is moving towards or away from the detecting apparatus, the speed of light they measure will always be the same. Is that correct?

One explanation is that E, D1 and D2 all are immersed in an invisible medium just like air is to sound, that transmits light by first responding to the disturbance at E and then transmitting the light at the natural speed that the ether transmits light to D1 and D2.

I suppose no alarm bells need to be raised here, this is the explanation involving ether.

What I think I meant was, in the absence of ether, what other explanation is possible? The ballistic theory will be ruled out by the independence of the speed of the emitter.

The wave theory would work, but it needs a medium.

How would you describe the way in which light is transmitted, without using either the ether, waves in ether or the ballistic theory? What is this concept and can it be put into words?

Yes, that was the model for a while. It predicts that if two observers were in the same local volume but only one of them stationary, the moving one could be detected by that observer measuring a different speed of light. But it is always measured the same, falsifying this view. — noAxioms

So there is no philosophical objection to light, or light waves or photons or whatever, being measured at the same speed no matter how fast the emitter and receiver are moving relative to each other?

None?

Can the concept of an object whose speed always is your speed + its natural speed raise any alarm bells?

If it is relative to something (your set of stars), it is not absolute. Any absolute frame would not be in reference to a particular thing. — noAxioms

I don't understand, can the same be said of the Ether? The Ether being the particular thing?

The Lumiferous Ether when it was thought to exist, was to serve the purpose of an universal frame of reference. A local volume of the Ether would then serve the same purpose.

Does game theory have anything to say about possible options? If we assume both sides are rational, it seems to rule out war.

2013 article: http://www.newyorker.com/news/evan-osnos/north-koreas-nuclear-game-theory

Not sure what a 'real time event' is. If there is communication, there is the event of the message being sent, and another where it is received. That's two events — noAxioms

Take for example the train and lightning strikes thought experiment. I have always thought that one could tell which lightning strike occurred first by stopping the train, and taking readings with measuring rods and clocks.

At the time the train is moving, however, it may not be possible to do this, due to the impossibility of using variations in light speed to determine simultaneity of events. This is an 'as it happens' view. Science also consists of taking measurements of past events using not speeds but displacements and locally recorded times.

Could we define an arbitrary boundary based on a set of stars that move very slowly relative to each other? Within this frame of reference, we can define absolute motion, does this make sense? How large does the frame of reference have to be to become useful?

This forum is a much freer and more open forum than some of the science fora I have been on. Refreshing change. Thank you.

Sound works like that. It has a speed limit (that varies with the medium), but if I'm in a supersonic jet, I can hear the person behind me talking. Outside, nobody hears the jet approaching. Sound obeys Galilean Relativity only because we can carry its aether with us. — noAxioms

Does Special Relativity apply only to 'real time' events? That is, events where information is communicated only by the speed of light and at the speed of light? No examining of historical traces or event logs, Einstein's train thought experiment seems to only illustrate real time effects.

Your God has a location, and light travels there? Indeed, that's absurd. God is outside and does not gain knowledge the way we do: by waiting for physical photons and such to reach us. God has access to all states, and thus can meaningfully be said to be everywhere. — noAxioms

So does this mean that the Relativity of Simultaneity does not apply to God? I would think he knows the Universe the way we would know fish in a fishbowl - we know were each one is, the limits, the center of the fishbowl ( I note your comments) , and the position and velocity of each fish in real time (since fish move at very much less than the speed of light, there are no detectable relativistic effects for us). He would know whether a fish is absolutely at rest or at motion with regard to the edges of the fishbowl, for example, or the water (ether?) or an arbitrarily chosen set of water molecules which happen to be in the same inertial frame?

Does Relativity apply to God?

Thank you. What about Herbert Dingle's critiques?
Despite criticisms, the theory, or at least the popular thought experiments and popular conception of the theory is still widely accepted. Is this changing? And how can an inconsistent theory be confirmed by experiments?

I think what I am really getting at is: is a purely Newtonian universe possible, with all relativity being Galilean Relativity. Could God create such an universe which neither violated Newtonian physics nor Relativity as an illusion due to the limits of the speed of light, meaning limiting the speed of information transfer?

One can imagine that information transfer is limited by the speed of light, reality is not. For example, is God's knowledge of an event is delayed by the time it takes light from the event to reach Him? Surely this is an absurd statement? (Asimov hinted at this, that the speed of light was slowing the second coming of Christ).

As purely philosophical question, would God be able to define an absolute frame of reference, say the centre of the known (to Him) universe, and all that there is beyond the reach of light and time?

Once we say God knows something, then it forces it into the realm of existence since God cannot know something that does not exist?

Thank you for the corrections. First this, though:

No other theory competes at this time. If you want, you can interpret the data as one 'correct' inertial frame, and none of the clocks or tape measures are accurate unless stationary in that frame. In that sense, time and space dilation would be an illusion born of not having accurate measuring tools, but then we would have no tools to measure actual time and space at all, so we're not really measuring anything accurately. That's a pretty useless interpretation. — noAxioms

Imagine, if there was a God, or an "Intelligence" that knew everything, and whose knowledge is not limited by the speed of light. Would this allow the possibility of an absolute centre of the universe, or an absolute frame of reference? Could God know if one 'correct' inertial frame exists, or not?

I might also add that the Lorentz transformation is used to preserve the laws of physics when translating any event from a moving frame to a non moving or say local (your) frame. In effect, when we observe things happening in a fast - moving frame, it looks like the laws of physics are violated, but when the proper transformations are made, it all comes out right in the end. Is this more or less correct?

Take the statement

There are fast particles that get created in the upper atmosphere (60000 m up) that have a lifespan long enough for light to travel about 600 meters before decaying. Almost none should reach the ground, but a vast percentage of them do because their decay is delayed by the time dilation from moving at about 99.5% of light. They age slow enough to reach a destination well beyond their life expectancy of about 2 microseconds. They could not do this if the dilation was but an illusion. — noAxioms

"There are fast particles that get created in the upper atmosphere (60000 m up) "

Fast as measured in our frame

"that have a lifespan long enough"

A lifespan in our frame of reference

" for light to travel about 600 meters "

in which reference frame?

"before decaying. Almost none should reach the ground, but a vast percentage of them do because their decay is delayed"

When measured in our FoR

" by the time dilation from moving at about 99.5% of light."


" They age slow enough to reach a destination well beyond their life expectancy of about 2 microseconds. They could not do this if the dilation was but an illusion."

Could there be any other explanation for this? I accept it as is, but just wondering.

Well if it turns out that we 'really" do not have free will, then the moment that is announced by scientists we will say "ah well" and move on, continue to do what we are doing.

The legal system may be in a frenzy.

Let's move on to mutual time dilation. It is often said that moving clocks run slow. This may be a misleading statement, or at the least, incomplete. What I think it means is that when transforming measurements between moving frames, we can no longer use Galilean transformations when the relative velocity (speed?) of the frames is comparable to the speed of light. This is because of the constancy of the speed of light within each frame, no matter which frame the origin of the light.

Does it mean that in inertial frames moving relative to each other, that mutual time dilation occurs? Is it just an illusion?

This situation is equivalent to the spaceship sending out particles at the speed of light throughout its journey.

The ship takes 13 months to travel here. That is not in question. What of the particles emitted from the ship? The first one will take 12 months or one year to reach us. The last one will take zero time to reach us.

1 year of travel is compressed into 1 month of images?

There are only certain groups labelled terrorists and they do not like it. Ever heard a terrorist admit being a terrorist?

They aren't dumb, they're unreasonable, and won't negotiate — Wosret

If they were not dumb, not unreasonable and did negotiate I guess they would be in politics?

Thank you. But this is interesting..

Thus there might be a star a light year away, and I can watch a really fast ship appear to pass it and arrive here a month later. That's not twelve times faster than light, it is just the ship getting here almost as fast as the image being observed. The trip still took 13 months in my own frame — noAxioms

You are saying that you may see a spaceship passing a star a light year away, the spaceship travelling directly towards you, and see the ship arrive at your location a month later.

So after the ship actually arrives, images of the ship will continue to arrive at your eyes? Will there be 13 months of images?

So is it correct to say that an observer can see two objects approaching each other at a speed > c? For example if one object is travelling at 0.7c and the other one at 0.8 c?

Of course for the observers riding in those objects, the theory says that they will see the other object closing at them at c or less.