Leaderboard

This is in danger of becoming a "no true Scotsman" argument.

People are not one or the other, they are a mix of positive and negative traits and any number of things can tip the balance. i suspect a lot of killings are out-of-character actions due to a perfect storm of events in the perpetrator's life. It's not too difficult to lose ones sense of proportion. Sometimes we need to protect ourselves from ourselves and make the things that may harm us, and those around us, a bit more difficult to reach in the heat of the moment.

Why does the far right defend the arms industry when it so clearly has reached extremist levels in our country? Why do virtually all the suggestions from the far right include more guns and ammunition, in clear support of the arms merchants? Can you honestly say you think this country needs to have more extremists with guns? Perhaps complaining and mocking about this mindset the Republicans have about profit over people isn't the best tactic, but it's pretty hard to understand all the contradictions. You usually seem like such nice folks, all right-to-life and everything.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. It happens. Move on.

Inertial frame is a frame that moves at a constant velocity without acceleration. On the other hand, rotation (or for that matter any motion on a closed trajectory) has to involve acceleration. Therefore, any FoR that exhibits such motion is not inertial by definition. When you are in a rotating FoR you can, in principle, measure the acceleration due to rotation. One such example is the Coriolis force or Coriolis effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force

Interesting article suggesting that human speech goes back long before H. sapiens: http://www.babelsdawn.com/babels_dawn/2018/02/sprechen-sie-neanderthal.html

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system in the U.S. works. There's a 9-month course I took that went over it. It's a lot more complicated than just "if the court overruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds."

Wowzers I got accepted into a CSU. What a surprise!

No. While any gravitons near the Event horizon an on the right trajectory would fall into the Event horizon (with a non-rotating BH a graviton could just skim past just outside the Event horizon without falling in), this has nothing to do with gravitons falling into the BH causing space-time curvature or the gravitational field. Photons following the same trajectories would also fall into the black hole, but this would not be the cause of the BH having a electromagnetic field (and Black holes can carry an electric charge.) You can have a BH absorbing lots of photons without it carrying a charge, or you could have one with a charge and absorbing no photons. You can have a BH and its associated gravitational field /local space-time curvature without it absorbing gravitons. I know that I said this before, but. Electromagnetic fields are mediated by] virtual photons, and gravitational fields would be mediated by virtual gravitons. Virtual particles are not bound by all the rules that "real" particles are, and thus virtual photons and virtual gravitons can escape the event horizon in order to mediate their associated fields. Virtual particles are a construct of the Uncertainty Principle. Basically, they are allowed to pop into and out of existence as long as they do it in a short enough period as to slip under the radar, as it were. As a result, they can get away with all kinds of things short of violating causality. They are an actual physical example of the old saying "If you don't get caught, it's not cheating".

If gravitons exist and they were close enough to a black hole (within the photon sphere) then, yes, they would fall into it. That would be because of space-time curvature, not the cause of it. Not necessarily. I think that, like most massive particles, they would rapidly decay. So they would only be created temporarily in high energy interactions. Not quite. But the graviton would be a quantum of disturbance on the space-time field. I don't think gravitons would be stable enough to be dark matter. They are massless, so couldn't be dark matter. Also, most models of dark matter are "cold" meaning that the particles move at significantly less than light speed, which would also rule out gravitons. But you mention virtual particles, and I don't think any virtual particles can be dark matter. They are not really particles at all, just a mathematical abstraction for describing interactions.

Everyone knows that Jesus was actually a Buddhist whose actions and teachings were not understood. All Vedic historians agree to this undeniable historical FACT. There is even a BBC documentary on it. Thus LOGIC dictates that it is Christianity which is heathen. You cannot argue with logic, it is simply TRUE. Anyway, it doesn't matter: it is undeniable that Jainism is actually the RIGHT and ONLY answer given all the Indian scholars who say so.

This is good on more than one level:

I find this pretty amusing:

I'm told that when naked mole rats sit around shooting the breeze, they discuss how they are a clear aberration. Apparently domestic cats hold much the same viewpoint. Not to mention African Greys. It seems its a tendency of any reflective species to view itself as unique and special. You can probably eliminate any single species from the planet and the biosphere will continue pretty much as it was apart from some small, local readjustments. So you can replace the word "humans" in your statement with the name of any species . If you don't feel a Great White is not a super-fish would you like to take one on in unarmed combat. I suggest it won't be long before you are truly unarmed. Moontanman has mentioned examples of intelligence and tool use, etc. There are plenty of examples of animals that are faster than us, or anything else,have better vision than us, or anything else, can endure lower temperatures than us, or anything else. And so on. If we insist on comparisons that focus on our strengths and ignore our weaknesses it is difficult to not to consider us super, but that seems a biased approach. Overgrazing is common. Predators sometimes kill too many of their prey. The Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed by one of its inhabitants. There are, I think, numerous examples of this. We are better at it than most, but I don't think most of us want to boast about that.

Those that are practiced by people with whom I disagree. As swansont mentions, it's an us vs them label, bestowed by those who consider themselves enlightened. I've always dislike when this word is used in real life. It attempts to describe "them" as stupid and immoral. It begs the question of questionable character. It's a word that's usually accompanied by spitting, and the shaking of pitchforks. It's a word that stops meaningful dialogue in its tracks, imo.

I found out you can be superstitious, but not a little bit stitious.

I disagree with Trump a lot. I think he should be impeached. Does that mean I love to see every other thread being a complaint/mocking thread about him? It's a self-enforcing cycle. First one person complains, then a second person complains about that person as well, person one adds to the second person complaints, person two adds to the first persons, on and on and on. I'm not sure anyone in this thread is trying to understand all the contradictions. As far as I know, every single one of us can see them plain as day. It doesn't accomplish anything. That's all I'm saying. It just reinforces peoples opinion that they're right without a shadow of a doubt. The right does this same thing as well, why do you think they're so convinced they're always correct? They start complaining about someone, then other people join in, and then it might as well be a contest to see who can complain about the person the most. It's not that I don't think it's the best tactic, it's that I think it's an outright harmful tactic to either side that's doing it.

So if you were only talking about past tense, and you weren't suggesting they could do it now, then why would you bother proposing a solution to a non-existent problem in your opinion? Edit after downvotes: I did not put words in your mouth. You said it was a problem that states had the ability to thwart federal laws on safety. I pointed out that they can't, and suggested that perhaps you don't fully understand the U.S. legal system, which is okay. It's not me being a Canadian racist, it's me suggesting something that's true. Then, after I stated that states can't thwart the federal government you try to tell me you never said it. Yet, I've quoted you directly saying that we might have to remove their ability to do so. Your posts have created a contradiction with themselves. You could always explain what you said better rather than trying to assert that you didn't say it at all, and downvoting the person for pointing it out.

Your own quote suggested that states could just thwart the federal government. They can't, and you very clearly stated it: Unless your opinion is that someone who breaks the law automatically thwarted the legal system even if they're caught and punished, then your quote doesn't hold up.

That what I said, FFS. How does that suggest anything other than the feds over-ruling state laws when they are wrong? Arguing over something we agree on. For shame. Quite obviously, your comment was driven by the narrow-mindedness that because I'm a Canadian I have no idea about your legal system, even as far as throwing the odd anti-American epithet (from the other thread) into the mix for no other than to disqualify me from the discussion. This is a science forum, fallacies fall flat on this board.

Boy, do I love these "Let's all rail on the far right and republicans" threads where we ask people a question we've already made our minds up on. They accomplish so much. Like complaining. And mocking. And definitely not getting shit done.