“Mr. Doctor man questions his hands…”

See I agree with your last statement. I mean “any” is a stretch but yeah there probably are other systems involving distance based forces that we could draw similarities to chemistry from.

I guess the issue here is that my argument is there are similarities and your argument is that one shouldn’t point out similarities unless there are enough of them…?

Your first paragraph implies you thought I meant just setting these systems statically next to each other would create a stable orbit. You’re right, that would be wrong. But I don’t think I ever mentioned stationary combination. Furthermore, while regular chemistry could work like that, in the real world every atom is moving. The bonds form when atoms get close enough. This is why temperature increases chemical reactions. More motion means more “collisions” that aren’t really collisions but you get the picture.

Objects in space are also constantly in motion. If you want to bring two stellar systems together, you need to give them velocities relative to each other. Or as you put it, momentum. This could be enough to ensure a stable system but it requires that the velocities at least a roughly specific which is what I meant when I said system chemistry would be highly directional in my original comment.

As for magnets. You could say both atoms and magnetic systems run on similar forces. You could make the argument that they, like atoms, have components which are constantly in motion and that if perturbed enough one could overcome those forces and break the system into its individual components.

However the behavior of the system as a whole is not similar to atoms because it cannot form any bonds of any kind with other similar systems.

If you were able to find magnetic monopoles which may or may not exist, you could probably build a system that is much more atom like than a gravitational system. But with magnets that have dipoles, even a ferromagnetic material would be drawn to one pole or the other. I suppose you could get up to two ferromagnetic bodies to orbit a rotating bar magnet if the velocities and distances were right, but you wouldn’t be able to combine them because moving any magnet closer would disrupt the conditions needed for stability.

Magnets are much more sensitive than gravitational systems because the objects have to be large relative to the system and close together whereas gravitational systems can be ginormous like Alpha Centauri.

Anyway it’s fun to think about what exactly I would count as chemical like properties.

I’d say they are mostly just the following:

1. A unit system is made of different components that are held together by some distance based force in a specific state of equilibrium; the unit has a space near the center containing the majority of the mass, and the unit can on some scale be treated as a particle.
2. Both components and units are separated by a functionally empty medium
3. Units can lose/gain/steal components from other units
4. A unit’s components and their amount/locations/motion change the way it interacts with other units
5. Some components can combine into a single component, split into multiple functioning components, or decay
6. Units can decay spontaneously or as a result of physical interaction
7. The removal or addition of a component to a unit can cause the unit to become unstable but does not always do so
8. Units interact with other units via a distance based force and can form stable multi unit equilibrium states, combine into a single unit, or destabilize entirely.
9. The specific equilibrium state (shape/configuration)of a multi unit system affects how it will interact with other units or multi unit systems.
10. Units can be removed from multi unit systems by other multi unit systems or external units with or without destabilizing the rest of the system from which it is removed.
11. Units and systems with similar enough configurations will react in similar ways

I think that covers it. So if you can find a system that fits those then I’d say there are similarities between them and atoms/chemistry. I will honestly be pretty excited if you do because it will be interesting.

Gravitational capture occurs when one object enters a stable orbit around another (typically referring to natural orbits rather than orbit insertion of a spacecraft with an orbital maneuvers).

So saying it “is not possible” is verifiably wrong. The perceived rarity of gravitational capture is most likely just due to how empty space is, not the unlikelihood of stability.

On that note, I think you might want to do some math yourself. You seem to be laboring under the impression that there are limited or maybe only a single exact state of stability for systems like this. “You have to perfectly set the velocities and magnetic moments” I’m not sure about magnets but I am sure about gravitation, and you don’t need to be very precise at all.

If you know how to code I’d suggest you try simulating two bodies with random masses traveling at random velocities. You’ll see that many times they do swing apart and a few times they will directly collide but there is a wide range of stable orbits. Sure, if you wanted to get perfectly circular orbits, you’d need to be more precise, but circular orbits are not necessary at all. Most orbits are at least a little eccentric, and eccentric orbits are still stable orbits. Importantly, they can be created without precision.

Next, while binary systems are assumed to form during star formation as you assert, the quote I listed from Wikipedia says it is possible for binary systems to form via gravitational capture.

Anyway, since that wasn’t enough evidence for you I decided to find an example of a combination system. Fortunately I didn’t have to look very far.

Alpha Centauri (our nearest stellar neighbor and triple star system) is a specific example of stable combination. Rigil and Toliman are main sequence stars that likely formed the way you listed since they are very close together and roughly the same size with slightly more massive than the other.

However, Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf that orbits the two circumbinarily. It is .2 light years from the other two which means it is roughly 5% of the distance to us from the barycenter of Toliman and Rigil.

However, despite the distance, it is “gravitationally bound” to them and its orbit has a 30deg inclination relative to them. This out of plane motion, the large distance, and the eccentricity of its orbit, imply that Proxima Centauri did not form from in the ways you listed. It may have formed in the same nebula as the other two, but it also very possibly could have travelled before getting gravitationally captured. In either case, it was gravitationally captured by some means and has formed a stable system despite having an out of plane velocity.

Proxima Centauri even has circumstellar planets, and its small mass and large distance from the binary pair mean it very easily could be stolen from the system if another main sequence star passed closely by. So it’s a great example of this “bonding” I’ve described.

Now magnets. Your magnet analogy is not similar to these scenarios because electromagnetism is highly directional. I don’t think you’d be able to combine systems of spinning magnets in any stable configuration other than a straight (spinning) line of them. However—as shown by the Alpha Centauri system—it is very possible to form stable multistellar systems from the combination of two stable systems.

Lastly you are correct that there are many many differences between atoms and gravitational systems. I mean shit, we don’t even know how atoms really work. String theory and particle physics don’t play nice and there are many more theories for unifying relativity and quantum physics that would impact what the “true” internal structure of an atom is like.

However, as mentioned in my last comment, that is not the point! My point was simply that there are some similarities and that you could do certain things with them that would have chemistry analogues. Does that make sense? I’m not saying “these are the same” I’m saying “it might be possible to use these in some similar ways to atoms.” And I’ve now found proof it is possible because of this debate, but the point of my original comment was curiosity/discovery not debate.

Firstly, you are wrong. Binary star systems are a good example this. Secondly, thank you for helping me find more similarities between atoms and stellar systems and learn new words.

From the Wikipedia page for Binary Star System:

it is not impossible that some binaries might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars

Again is it unlikely? Hell yeah but I covered that point previously and the important part is that it is still possible.

Next, I need to thank you because you helped me find out that your “nuclear type reactions” happen and are similar to nuclear combination of atoms.

The orbits of planets in a binary system can be circumbinary which would be the “nuclear type” as you called it where the stars (or most massive body in the system) begin orbiting each other and planets orbit around both as though they were a single massive object.

However, they can also be circumstellar (as I described previously) meaning the two stars orbit each other but the planets orbit only one star each. This would be much more analogous to an ionic bond (though again without polarity) where two atoms are attracted to one another but do not share electrons.

Furthermore, it seems there is even more similarity as the circumbinary systems are more unlikely to break apart but the circumstellar type require stars to be far enough away would make them more easily dislodged. This seems similar to nuclear decomposition being much harder to pull off than chemical decomposition.

But wait, there’s more.

Some binary stars orbit each other so closely that they share the same atmosphere, giving the system a peanut shape. While most such contact binary systems are stable, some do become unstable and either eject one partner or eventually merge.

Even if the stars get close enough to touch, they can still be differentiated and are “stable” This seems much more like a nucleus since the “particles” are packed tightly together and the whole “becoming unstable means I eject a particle” kind of screams radioactive decay.

Anyway, there are “periodic solutions” (stable configurations that follow a cycle) to the three body problem and there are likely some for n-bodies. So contrary to your assertion, it is possible to make a stable system with multiple massive bodies that do not combine “nuclear type”.

As you can see from the images on the Wikipedia page, these systems have unique shapes which is what I was referring to as the analog of proteins having specific shapes.

Lastly, the first line of my original comment was that yes, these solar sustems are reminiscent of a wrong model of the atom. I’m well aware of the structure of electron orbitals and Schrödinger’s equations for electron position etc.

My point was not to say that stellar systems are structured just like atoms or behave exactly like them either. My point wasn’t even that there are more similarities that differences. It was simply that there are similarities between the two and that you could build some analogous structures/chemistry with gravitational systems.

Oh yeah eventually they will. But eventually protons will decay. Could you do something with these bonded “atoms” before they collapse? Probably not as much as you can before an atom decays but yeah you’ve definitely got at least a few million years for most systems right?

While others have correctly pointed out that the model of atom which is reminiscent of a solar system is not accurate. I would like to point out that systems of massive bodies in space could possibly be used in some ways similar to atoms.

The closer you get the stronger the pull is, but if you’re going fast enough, you can find stable configurations. This means it is possible (though incredibly unlikely) that if two solar systems interacted the right way, you could get a stable combined system. Two systems could orbit each other with or without sharing planets which is reminiscent of certain kinds of atomic bonds. You can even have system interactions where one system steals a planetary body from another. Sure there’s no ionic bonding because gravity isn’t polar but it’s still possible to create “bonds” of some kind.

Also, the specific configuration, total mass, and number of massive bodies in each system would affect how it interacts with any other system, kind of like chemical properties of elements.

If you throw a massive enough thing fast enough you can rip a solar system apart kind of like how throwing a neutron or nucleus fast enough at an atom can break it apart.

Complex gravitational systems can have specific and often complex physical structures/shape too, which could be argued as similar to the way proteins have complex and specific shapes. These shapes would change the way the systems interact with other systems because gravity and distance are related. Again creating these stable configurations would be unlikely but still not impossible.

Hell, there are even weirder similarities too. Stars and black holes “decay” and the collision of planets can yield different numbers of “particles” which interact in new ways because their mass is different.

Sure, gravitational systems are not nearly as stable as atoms, they probably couldn’t be ordered into a table like elements, and do not operate on exactly similar forces like atoms. System-chemistry would also be very directional which would be tedious, but I think it’s cool that it could be possible to do similar things with gravitational systems as you can with atoms, even if they don’t have similar structure or internal properties.

“The Yellow Wallpaper”

It was quite scarring for most of the kids in my 7th grade class.

Also I’ve only just now realized that wallpaper back then could have contained arsenic so going insane from being in contact with it constantly enough to stain your skin is a very real possibility.

Trick them into thinking they could destroy you and your ideals in an argument if they were only slightly more informed. Worked on me lol

Jk, I mean that would’ve probably worked on me, but really I started because I was genuinely curious and someone here said State and Revolution had the answers

Well suggestion for recruiting techniques, all it took for me was starting to read State and revolution. Two days of that and boom suddenly I’m telling my liberal friends they are in fact not socialists at all.

Also I’m not even through the whole thing yet because I keep getting distracted, but I’ve already told several of my friends to read it because I think they, like me, will be slightly stunned when they see things from Lenin’s perspective.

Sidenote: while on the train as I’m reading, I feel the urge to talk to people about it. Unfortunately, I live in like one of the most conservative places ever, so I honestly might get shot if I start a converstation about socialism. That being said, if someone here dares me to do it I will lol

“Scary door” from Futurama

It’s a play on the twilight zone and it’s quite something.

“A casino where I’m always winning? This must be heaven!” “A casino where I always win… I must actually be… IN HELL!”

“No Mr. smith. You’re not in heaven or hell. You’re on an airplane!”

“Help! There’s a gremlin destroying the plane! You’ve gotta believe me!”

“Why should I believe you?! You’re Hitler!”

For those interested: The Scary Door

Yeah I now understand why real socialists hate what most people think is the left. Everything I’ve ever heard called socialism or socialist by anyone I know, left or right leaning, is focused entirely on economics. It’s always like begging the state to make the lives of the working class less horrible, whereas socialism—defined by Marx and Lenin—isn’t really much about economics at all, focusing on class and the “issue of the state.”

I only got about a third of the way through before I decided to reread from the beginning taking notes on every sentence, so I’ve still got a ways to go (especially since I have difficulty reading due to ADHD). But I really am surprised by how invested I am in this and how many new things I’m noticing in the world around me.

I realized this morning that even terms like “socialized medicine” seem to be exactly what Lenin is describing about how the ideals of revolutionaries are manipulated to entirely exclude their core values, to become palatable and innocuous. Nationalizing the cost of healthcare has nothing to do with the “issue of the state.” It doesn’t have anything to do with revolution or the dissolution of class. It’s just begging the state to make the situation of the working class less horrible.

And that’s the point. When most people think socialism they think about stuff like that (or at least I did and most of the people I know). They think about trying to tax the rich more or trying to get the state to fund more public services. They are placated by the illusion that actions like those will slowly but surely fix the issues that arise from class…

Anyway, I have yet to disagree with Lenin. And while I’m still hesitant to openly call myself a socialist before I learn more, I definitely will be defending that term. Like honestly I’m so ready for one of my liberal friends calls themselves a socialist so I can explain that nothing they do is really socialism lol

Yeah, I should have realized that the term fascism would obviously have different definitions depending on the ideology of those using it. I also should have realized that in using an umbrella term like fascism or nationalism, I was obscuring the underlying reasons for my opinion.

And not just obscuring them from you all but from myself too. Had I put thought into the specifics of what I was writing, I probably wouldn’t have posted here at all because I would have realized how uncertain my own opinion was and how little I knew.

But, it’s not all bad. First, it’s good for me to make a fool of myself every once in a while because I definitely need to be humbled sometimes. Secondly, it is only because of the comments here that I started reading the stuff I’ve been telling myself I need to read for like years.

I started “The State and Revolution” today and I am enjoying it significantly more that I thought I would. Definitely is making me see things from a new perspective and also to just see things I never noticed before. Anyway it’s very entertaining because I like learning, and Lenin keeps answering the questions that I have about what he’s saying like as soon as I have them which is kind of neat

Alright, firstly, my original question was strictly about the opinions of people in this community and their reasoning behind them. This was the proper place to ask that question.

Second, instead of receiving answers to my question, I was made aware of my ignorance and my further comments were primarily asking questions to further my understanding of those responses and asking questions about where I could go to learn more myself.

You are correct that it isn’t reasonable for me to expect all of you to hold my hand and teach me everything. That is why I did try to ask questions more focused on where I could find the answers myself.

they were created with science and observation

So were the ones in any dictionary ever. Now if you mean that the Marxist-Leninist definitions are more rigorously defined then you can assert that, but you can’t assert that other definitions are invalid or not based on “reality” only that they are less rigorously defined and do not share much overlap with your set of definitions.

You can even argue that more rigorous definitions are more useful for in depth discussion, and you’d be right, but that still doesn’t mean the other definitions are any less “real.”

As for the rest of your comment, it seems like you don’t understand what I mean by right now.

Imagine you were asking someone where you should go eat and they brought up a time they accidentally ate rotten food from their fridge. Does that help you decide where to eat? No. Does that mean that the story didn’t happen? No. Does it mean that the story isn’t important? No. But it isn’t important in the context of your decision on where to eat.

Imagine you were asked your friend what shade of red a flower was and instead of answering they decided to talk about what shade of blue a nearby one was. Is the shade of blue of that flower any less important and the shade of red of the one you’re looking at? No, but hearing about the shade of that flower doesn’t help you with your question. So it isn’t important right now.

That is what I’m trying to say with the moon example. Sure we’d all die, but that wouldn’t answer my question and while relevant to you and I, would not be relevant to the intended topic of discussion.

Do you get what I’m trying to say?

Your inability to talk about the state of the US empire and it’s effect on the world is really not our problem

Firstly *its. Second, yep you’re right because that is a problem that doesn’t exist.

It is presumptuous for you to assume I’m incapable of talking about the US or the atrocities committed by it. As it is presumptuous that you think I in any way support those actions or have no empathy for those affected by them.

I’m sorry you’re upset. Clearly I’ve struck a nerve and I do apologize for that.

I do not think you are a “bad guy” for telling me to do reading. You are correct on that front and I believe I said as much.

My criticism of your responses was strictly about how emotional and unhelpful some of it was.

This response is similar.

You seem so focused on belittling me or hating me for opinions you believe I have, that you don’t seem to be attempting to understand what I’m trying to say.

I’m sorry that you think I have no sympathy for others. I’m sorry saying anything that initially offended you.

I’m sorry that you automatically assume people do not care about what has happened and what is still happening to people around the world due to the imperialism and disregard of countries like the United States. Your compassion for others is admirable, and your distress over the perceived disregard for their suffering is also valid. But your hatred towards me is misguided.

I am not your enemy. I am not blind to the problems of the world and I am not silent about my distaste for the US’s role in those problems. However, considering I made that point in my last reply, it seems you are so set in your belief that I am your enemy that you will no longer listen to reason. I doubt there is any evidence I could give you, or words I could write that would change your mind, so instead I’ll end this with an apology.

I can imagine where you’re coming from. I can imagine where your feelings of anger and hatred and paranoia arise from. I can imagine the feelings of distrust you feel towards me and the feelings of wrath you have for anyone who you believe would defend the atrocities you’ve learned about.

It must suck feeling all of those feelings. It probably sucks worse feeling like you can’t share them openly because there is prejudice towards “tankies.” Finding a safe space on the internet for you to share those thoughts only to then have to deal with someone from the outside questioning those thoughts may feel like a violation.

I really am sorry that I have added to your negative feelings today. I hope you forget about this conversation quickly and can focus your mind on more positive thoughts, or at the very least, one less negative one.

None of us are deliberately being antagonistic or trolls.

I did not mean to imply you were being trolls. If that was unclear I am sorry. I also did not mean to imply that you were being deliberately antagonistic. I was trying to make you aware of the fact you were coming across to me that way. And that dealing with trolls would explain why you may naturally have responded in that way

The others who have already tried to help you were far nicer than I’m willing to be

You are correct, the others in this chain have been much less condescending. That’s why my reply about it was directed toward you.

…are based in reality with clear definitions.

Wikipedia fits both those requirements?

You are right that I should probably have researched the terms definitions that you would use, but I honestly did not know there were significant discrepancies in the definitions of these terms until this discussion.

As for your second point, I do not want to “totally disentangle the USA” from this discussion. I simply wanted to point out that your argument was fallacious. The wrongs of one entity do not justify the wrongs of another.

The reason I said my argument didn’t involve the US at all was that I’m not interested in comparison between North Korea and another country.

Analyzing one variable is also how science is done. I want to analyze specifically DRPK because that is what my question was about. If I ask why a flower is red and you start describing how it’s not as complicated as why a flower is blue, can you see why that isn’t helpful?

Bringing up how the US shaped the current state of NK is certainly relevant. Bringing up a genocide being funded by the US on the other side of the world with no connection to the DPRK is not.

Furthermore I am not here to “rank nations” though I will admit I definitely do need to reconsider the way I currently rank them and why. I was wondering what the justification was for supporting a nation with traits I viewed as negative and that fit my definition of fascism. If you do it because “the US is worse” then I guess I have my answer.

Why aren’t you interested in what you call “American corruption”

I guess I should have specified that I meant I’m not interested in that right now, as in that isn’t the topic I’m asking about right now.

splash in the kiddie pool

This is what I meant by condescending and antagonistic.

You THINK having clear definitions of this is somehow salami slicing but it is incredibly important.

Firstly I have never heard that expression before. Secondly, what? The whole thing I’ve been bringing up with definitions is incredibly important.

When I say “words have the meaning you give to them” I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter what definition you have, I’m saying the exact opposite. It is important that we have the same definitions of words if we are going to use those words to try and communicate with one another. I’m not sure how you misinterpreted that but I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear enough.

every description you give of it applies to the US

Again who gives a shit about that right now? I don’t care if the US were to blow up the moon, that has no bearing on whether or not the DRPK is militarized or why it is or isn’t a justified trait.

rank nations based on

Bruh why are you obsessed with ranking nations? Did my comment really come off that way?

Also technically speaking, if we were to set common definitions of what militarization means and its degrees then we absolutely could rank nations like that and it would not be subjective like attractiveness. However that would require common definitions which we don’t have and it would also require us to desire to rank nations by militarism which in currently not interested in tho the US almost certainly does win that one lol

Anyway, sorry if my questions or response are pissing you off. You are right that I have a long way to go, but hey Plato said to never discourage anyone who makes progress no matter how slow right?

Ha well you’ve never met me!

(Fact check: This still might not help conversation because I’m definitely just bad at conversation anyway lol, also hearing myself called a liberal just reminds me of conversations back in my hometown or with my grandparents lol)

That’s mercantilism right? Except with democratic representatives setting prices rather than a monarchy. Doesn’t that get arbitrarily complex as new kinds of things are made? Why do you think it is better than “outsourcing” that work to a market?

Damn the theme for this comment chain really is that you all use esoteric definitions of terms haha

I’ll try to read State and Revolution (that’s the one by Lenin right? I think I already had it on my list)

As for hypermilitarism, I think ingraining military prowess into the national ideology would count. Tying national identity to military dominance does not seem healthy for a society. Furthermore, bragging about one’s military prowess also seems unhealthy for a society and pointedly against international peace / cooperation.

The definitions of militarism I think of when I hear the word are typically “Glorification of military,” “Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.” And “The view that military strength, efficiency and values should dominate the country’s public policy choices and take precedence over other interests.”

Personally the definition: “The policy of maintaining a large military force, even in peacetime” falls more on the “hypermilitarism” side of things in my mind. However, I do understand that desire in countries that have been colonized and repeatedly attacked.

Anyway the DPRK seems to fit all those definitions and from what I’ve read (don’t worry I’m reading more) those definitions are ingrained in the ideology of Juche.

Also my questions don’t involve the US at all. The US is a clear example of militarism and definitely takes the cake as the most hypermilitarized country. That being said, the US hypermilitarism arises from the prevalent corruption in it, whereas the militarism of DPRK is a foundational element of Juche. <- this is not to say the US is better in any way, only to illustrate that what I dislike is not specifically that the DPRK is hyper militarized but that its founding principles require it to be and that seems flawed.

Regardless, trying to say something is good because another thing is worse is a fallacy. I’m not interested in American corruption I’m interested in opinions on elements I view as flaws in the ideology of the DPRK.

I also realize that you are probably used to dealing with trolls being antagonistic on purpose, but I really am just trying to learn.

Where would you suggest I go to learn about those terms and their differences?

Thank you for your response.

Out of curiousity could you provide sources that you count as being backed by the CIA and evidence that the CIA is in fact backing that misinformation?

I have a somewhat macabre interest in all the misinformation and coup stuff the US does. Like the coup over bananas? Fascinating

As for using Wikipedia as a source and the definition of fascism, I used Wikipedia because I assumed that definition was the most widespread. Words have the meaning we give them, so If we don’t have the same definitions in mind then the term fascism isn’t useful in our discussion.

However, I do appreciate that you still adressed each part of the definition I used since those items are still negative traits whether they fall into the definition of fascism or not.

Also, good point, I guess lots of the countries I can think of with extensive militaries kind of fit that definition.

Where would you suggest I go for less CIA-biased information on the governmental structure and history of DPRK?

I’m sorry that my inquiry sounds inflammatory. I tend to lack tact with words and much of what I say comes off aggressively because I’m bad at finding a non aggressive way to say it. Thank you for putting up with me lol

Also thank you for providing a source for me to look into for more information.

As for Wikipedia defining fascism, terms hold the definitions we give them. Communication is based on shared definitions of terms. If I refer to an animal as a cat you are likely thinking of the same animal I was referring to.

I use Wikipedia as a source for definitions because its widespread use means that the definitions listed in it are ones held by wide audiences. So using Wikipedia means I’m more likely to use terms in the same way others use them.

However it looks like your definition of fascism differs from my own and that of the majority. Until we share definitions the use of the word fascism will only hinder our communication.

I’ll check the sources you linked when I have time between classes, but would you mind defining fascism in your own words?

Also, while our definitions of fascism may differ, I do still hold the specific items listed in the definition (dictatorship, nationalism, hyper militarism, etc.) as negative qualities for a society/government. Regardless of whether those fall under the definition of fascism, they do not seem like traits found in a good system of government. What do you think about those traits specifically?