GR agrees (recognizing the obvious caveats) with the classical law of F = Gm₁m₂/r², where F stands for "force". This force is caused by spacetime curvature.
No, GR says that the Newtonian law of gravity is an approximation that makes reasonably accurate predictions when the spacetime curvature is small and all relative motions are slow compared to the speed of light. It does not say that the Newtonian interpretation of that equation is correct.
> GR says that the Newtonian law of gravity is an approximation that makes reasonably accurate predictions when the spacetime curvature is small and all relative motions are slow compared to the speed of light.
These are merely the aforementioned caveats.
> It does not say that the Newtonian interpretation of that equation is correct.
If the interpretation were wrong, and that's not a force, then the amount of force in that equation would be 0.
With no force, Gm₁m₂/r² = 0.
However, that's not the modification that GR applies to this, though.
> If the interpretation were wrong, and that's not a force, then the amount of force in that equation would be 0.
With no force, Gm₁m₂/r² = 0.
Nonsense. The GR interpretation is that G m1 m2 / r^2, when it is nonzero, is describing an effect of spacetime geometry, not a force. It can't be a force in GR because it isn't felt; an object moving solely under the influence of G m1 m2 / r^2 feels no weight--an accelerometer attached to it reads zero. GR does not change the numerical value of G m1 m2 / r^2 at all. It just reinterprets what the quantity represents.
> "Conservatives" feel that their entire ideology is being unfairly attacked by global Jewish power brokers
The Wall Street Journal, Mark Levin, and Mitch McConnell fret over these Jewish power brokers, do they?
Or did you mean the ultra-MAGA wing, where DeSantis flies to Israel to cheerfully sign a bill against anti-Semitic hate speech? Or Donald Trump himself, the most popular American president among Israelis?
> Since when has advertisement even implied endorsement of nearby content?
It's not an endorsement. People make associations all the time consciously or not. There are obviously positive and negative associations. And if it's within your power to reduce the negative associations which might impact the perception of your product then why won't you do it? Advertising is primarily an appeal towards emotion not logic. It's manipulative by nature.
I don't know what I'm saying that's so unreasonable.
Also, I can't control whether some homeless person pees next to my billboard, but if my competitors also have billboards in the area then I may still come out on top. But if I can move my weight to move those homeless people elsewhere, preferably to my competitors billboards then I'll do it. This isn't a moral argument.
Nobody associates Coke with the reek of bum piss because they encountered a messy billboard. This is simply an unreal line of argument.
It certainly would be interesting if we lived in a world where advertisers refused to run ads in stadiums of losing teams, ran their ads only on sunny days, and only on positive, uplifting tv episodes while entirely avoiding shows about serial killers. We can fantasize, but the actual world has never worked this way.
This seems like a generalization with as many counterexamples as examples. Also, users don't actually want censorship, they want a tailored experience that filters out whatever content they don't like.
When I first grasped how many fake papers are floating around, I gnashed my teeth and called for heinous penalties upon the fraudsters.
After a moment, I thought better, and decided that we should actually offer incentive for fraudulent papers! Liars will always have incentive to lie. When their lies are accepted by those who ought to be more skeptical, it's an indictment of the system, which should be more robust in detecting fraud.
The CPC under Deng, unlike the CPSU, paid attention to the materialism part of Marxism, recognized that the business of America is business, and realized that the Western ruling classes stood to earn trillions from cooperation. In the west, still fresh from remembering WW2, bankers felt that trade linkages could prevent WW3. In hindsight, it was an obvious and brilliant strategy.
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Electrodynamics-Dover-Book...