MigL

Senior Members
  • Content count

    3257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

MigL last won the day on May 26

MigL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

537 Glorious Leader

About MigL

  • Rank
    Scientist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    History
    Modern Military aviation
    Computer hardware
    and of course Science
  • College Major/Degree
    B.Sc. Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Single, never married
  • Occupation
    Solvay Canada - Phosphine and organophosphorus derivatives production

Recent Profile Visitors

19550 profile views
  1. Yet another possibility for Fermi's Paradox

    Hope is imaginary. So is love, and many other feelings and emotions. They are constructs of our brain with no physical evidence. Some of these constructs can give us comfort and well-being in times of need, while some, like despair or hate, can drive us to end our life or the lives of others. Religion, or more exactly religiosity, is exactly the same; the need to believe in a higher power ( that has a purpose for us we may not know ), gives religious people comfort and purpose in life. I don't have a grudge against them. Only those who seek to take advantage of them.
  2. Atom as a boson?

    A boson is not necessarily an elementary particle. It is a particle ( or compound particle ) which obeys Bose-Einstein statistics. Similarily, a fermion obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics. ( hence the names )
  3. Black hole?

    Interesting paper Mordred. Very readable, even for a layman, as it has plenty of verbal explanations for any mathematics. It should be pinned ( if it could ) as it would rid a lot of the misconceptions about BH theory.
  4. A different approach to drugs ?

    I stand corrected. Thank you John and CharonY.
  5. Black hole?

    The Big Bang ( possible ) singularity is in the past, while the Black Hole ( possible ) singularity is in the future. Huge difference. Temperature is easiest to understand by considering a gas. The more energetically the gas particles bump against each other, the higher the temperature. Past a Black Hole's event horizon there is no 'compression'. Everything is moving in one direction. Nothing can move away from the ( possible ) singularity. Nothing can even slow down. So how can anything bump into anything else to give rise to a compression or temperature ? Anything that crosses an event horizon encounters nothing ( nichts, nada, niente, rien, etc. ) on its way to its future encounter with the possible singularity. The interior of the event horizon is really 'empty' space. I'm not even sure if you can model virtual particles in there ( Mordred ?? ). The only 'temperature' of a Black Hole is derived from the entropy ( area ) of its event horizon.
  6. Yes, it was said the emails were deleted to 'cover' what she knew about Benghazi. So, I believe I covered that.
  7. I was a supporter of H Clinton since she announced her candidacy. She seems competent and capable ( although a bit of a sore loser ). And seeing the joke that the President of the US has become, I guess I'm still a supporter and wish she had won. I did grow somewhat disillusioned with her during the campaign though, not so much all that crap about the emails, but the DNC's 'fix' of the nomination process. If they are going to cheat at that, what else will they cheat at ( if H Clinton even knew about the 'fix' ); But I still would have voted for her. The fact that she lost cost me over Can$ 400, on lunch and drinks for the four guys I bet against There were a lot of accusations levelled against her during the campaign, some as late as two weeks before the election, and people say 'where there is smoke, there is fire', but sometimes the smoke is just steam being let off during the heat of the campaign.
  8. A different approach to drugs ?

    My post was regarding heroin as a painkiller, CharonY. And there are numerous studies as to its effectiveness. I really don't think its legal anywhere that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think I'm being judgemental at all Stringy. You could live the healthiest life and make all the right choices but still eventually die of cancer. It is a built in genetic failure mechanism. Eventually your cells stop reproducing perfectly and anomalies develop in their reproduction; these anomalies or abnormal cells are, by definition, cancer. Malignant ones reproduce quickly and spread. The addict on the other hand, is all about choice. And if you re-read, I don't wish to deny the addicts either. I just want cancer sufferers taken care of too ( or better yet, first )
  9. Al Franken's funniest moment

    Sorry for my absence, I was in Toronto watching the Toronto FC kicking the Seattle Sounder's ass, and hoist the MLS trophy. I have never accused you of being an apologist for a liberal sexist, RangerX. What I have accused you of is defending a sexist, who waitforufo threw in your face just because he is a Liberal, and you , being equally partisan, took the bait and defend him ( even if you abhor his actions ) also because he is a Liberal. Your partisanship is on display by the way you generalise about Conservatives in your above post, painting them all with the same brush, and claiming none are 'moral'. Bigoted much ?
  10. A different approach to drugs ?

    Governmenta all over the world ( OK, here in Canada anyway ) are announcing programs to fight the Opioid crisis. Millions of dollars are being announced to provide drugs to addicts to help ease their suffering and protect society. Yet these people chose the path to their suffering. Why not start with legalizing drugs to cancer sufferers who, to a large extent, are not responsible for their suffering. If an opioid addict chooses to abstain, eventually he will not be suffering. If a cancer sufferer takes heroin to ease his suffering, he's still faced with a painful death. I know which one I'd help first. How about you ?
  11. Al Franken's funniest moment

    Thanks again for the comparison, RangerX. You seem to want to prove every point I make. What if, during the H Weinstein discussion, everytime someone mentioned what Harv had done, I countered with... "Sure, but at least he's seeking treatment, look at what Louis B Mayer did to Judy Garland, and got away with it" Would that have been seen as a fair comment ? Or would you have jumped all over it as I'm doing with you ?
  12. Trump to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

    Just two thoughts. Other than the fact that this is just another of D Trump's inane announcements, and is probably designed to draw our attention away from his problems ( if he has the capacity to plan such a thing )... Over 40 years of NOT recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, has not brought peace. This will not change anything !
  13. Al Franken's funniest moment

    You're being disingenuous, Ten oz. You can draw an association between just about anything. The fact that A Franken is in a position of power, as a comedian/entertainor or a Senator/politician is what allows him to disrespect women. And the fact that it doesn't happen just in politics, but with producers like H Weinstein, newsmen like C Rose and M Lauer, and so many others is proof that it is not a symptom of political ideology. There are plenty of threads about Democrats vs Republicans as there are about D Trump. Why does every thread have to devolve into a discussion about the polarization of American politics or D Trump's idiocy ? As I've stated previously, the polarization , which you and others seem to embrace, is what got us into this mess ( presidential idiocy ) in the first place. But if you guys want to make every thread about Republicans vs Democrats, or about D Trump, then knock yourselves out. I've said my piece and you guys ( like waitforufo ) wanna keep contributing to the problem. Majority rules.
  14. Al Franken's funniest moment

    Authoritarian ?? No, not at all. But I am questioning your comprehension.
  15. Al Franken's funniest moment

    I'm sorry iNow, but if this thread is about Democrat morals as opposed to Republican morals, I must have misread the OP.