Leaderboard

Less gods than one is... more reasonable.

The problem is that "good" is subjective. Some people think it's "good" for the US that he's been tearing down EPA regulations and doing things that allow businesses to rape the environment. Some people think it's "good" that he's been stripping away banking regulations from Dodd-Frank and allowing Wall Street to once again gamble with peoples money. Some people think it's "good" that he's throwing people out of the country who have been here 20+ years, including some who served honorably in our military. Some people think it's "good" that he's put tariffs on solar panels and is trying to prop up the coal industry. Some people think it's "good" that he's separating refugee children from their parents at the border, saying that domestic abuse is no longer an acceptable reason to seek refuge in the US, and some people think it's "good" that Jeff Sessions is cracking down on marijuana use, forcing judges to try nonviolent immigrants, and that schools are being unfunded, sanctions on Russia unenforced, and ignored sanctions from Chinese companies unpunished. The problem is that "good" is subjective...

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. The problem here is you’re trying to shoehorn faith into any crevice you can find, force it into places where it isn’t necessary and doesn’t belong, and you’re doing this instead of proactively describing situations where proceeding without faith is impossible. I cant think of a single situation (outside of accepting unfounded untenable claims as valid) where faith is actually prerequisite. Can you?

He said N Korea was bad and he said N Korea was good. It's likely that one of those is right.

This comes back to the definition of religion. I know here it is taken to mean the worship of some deity, but this isn't an aspect of all the things which are commonly called religion around the world. 'Religion' is not homogenous and the role of faith, if any, varies.

I think it aids water retention in the muscles as well, which plumps them up. Once they stop taking them they go all flabby.

From the perspective of extreme wealth capitalism, he's doing everything right. The theatrics hide his removal of restrictions and regulations that limit profit, and allow the GOP to claim shock at his outrageousness while passing bills to promote more private ownership of previously public or state owned operations. He repealed Obama-era regs that required ISPs to take reasonable measures to protect your sensitive data, just before we came to find out about all kinds of breaches of our sensitive data on the web, so that saved the major providers a LOT of legal trouble. From the perspective of those who want us to align more with China and Russia in the future, and less with our traditional allies (too socialist and won't promote 100% capitalism), Trump is working furiously to Make America Better (Redder?). Without NATO and all the other stumbling blocks to increasing investments exponentially worldwide, extremist gazillionaires will be able to create a capitalist utopia where everyone will have work, and those with the most money will just trickle that down to everyone else. That makes a lot more sense (if you already have a lot of money) than the humanitarian strategy currently in place. From the perspective of fringe groups that hold negative views, Trump is the Savior. He has done so much good promoting traits and behaviors that so many people were trying to remove from society, like bigotry and misogyny. Just because the people who actively discriminate on a daily basis are a small minority, that doesn't mean their hate-filled voices shouldn't be heard, or treated on an equal basis with more mainstream thought by the media.

Haha no worries, jokes aside I am interested in your thread and hope member with insight will contribute.

I see this is a very important topic, seeing how you posted it 3 times.

Discuss what? The answer to the OP is NO.

On the Economy the standard bench marks most wildly examined have always been 5 this: unemployment, GDP, stock markets, budgets (surplus/deficit), and work participation. Under Trump unemployment has continued to creep down. That is good. GDP has remained unchanged which is bad considering the tax cuts were meant to stimulate growth and hasn't. The Stock market has been bear (first in 9yrs) thus far in 2018. Deficits have soared and the work participation rate is unchanged. So of the 5 economic benchmarks Trump has 1 good, 1 no change, and 3 bad. I can go issue by issue if you'd like and rate his performance dispassionately. Ultimately nothing jumps out as exceeding good for the U.S. To be fair to Trump I at this stage of any presidency it is difficult to really identify good things. It is early. My thoughts on the matter only carry so much weight, perhaps none. What I want and what will be are very different things so each new day requires re-examination.

I only hope I will get a real answer and that I am not taken as an apologist for Trump. He is very aggressive and arrogant etc etc but I want to see if people can be objective too.

How are you defining success? I believe Trump and an increasing number of his supporters define Trump's success by what's good for Trump. By that definition Trump has had numerous successes. - Trump has crushed the moderate movement within his party that opposed him. - Trump got his tax cuts push through. - Trump won superficial battles with NFL players by pressuring for a rule change. - Trump has successfully put U.S. military operations in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq out of sight out of mind. Trump has been wildly successful in doing what he wants.. The question is whether or not that is good for the U.S. and the rest of the world. Trump doesn't hold himself to any standard. He seldom ever lays out a clear standard for what success looks like. It allows him to celebrate any outcome as successful.

I'm sure @Ten oz will be thrilled to give you a long and thorough examination of all the Trump's success stories since he became POTUS

The goal posts seem to have been moved. The Kim legacy in North Korea and their human rights and authoritarianism has always been part of tensions. In the last 2 decades Kim Jung-il and Jung-un pursued WMDs as a strategy to protect their own hold on power. By meeting with Kim and exclusively addressing the WMDs while ignoring all other concerns and making concessions without consulting our allies in the region rewards the strategy Kim Jung-il and Jung-un have implemented. By developing WMDs Jung-un earned himself a seat at the table and is no winning concessions without changing course on anything. Simply being willing to talk if progess enough. Why shouldn't Assad or Iran take this strategy? If having weapons earns you respect and one on one good faith diplomacy why make deals in advance. This is especially painful for Iran who made a deal with the U.S. not to develop nukes just to have the U.S. turn around half way through and demand a new deal. This lesson here for authoritarians around the world might be to get nukes first and then negotiate from a position of power.

The boundary conditions in this case are simply that the spacetime must be asymptotically flat at infinity (i.e. reduces to Newtonian gravity), and smooth and continuous everywhere else, including at the inner and outer boundaries of the shell. That is what it means to have a global spacetime manifold. This continuity condition is crucial - if you have points where spacetime is not continuous and differentiable, then the field equations do not apply there, and the whole thing becomes internally inconsistent. When you account for the continuity condition, the metric constants become fixed automatically. For an example of how boundary conditions are used in GR to match solutions and ensure continuity, see §23 of Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, which deals with the interior Schwarzschild metric. This way is how I learned to do it, and I don’t see how it could possibly be “wrong”, so long as the result matches the situation in the Newtonian limit, and reproduces the Birkhoff theorem outcome, which it does. My reference would be the well-understood Newtonian limit. We already know that in the Newtonian case, the gravitational potential in the interior cavity is not the same as the one at infinity. The GR solution must reproduce this boundary case, since the g{tt} component of the metric tensor is directly related to gravitational potential in the Newtonian limit. If time dilation was zero in the cavity, as compared to a reference clock at infinity, you would end up with a contradiction in the Newtonian limit. Therefore, globally speaking, g{tt} cannot be the same inside the cavity and at infinity. For a more direct confirmation of what the consensus on this is, physicsforums.com would be a good place to ask, since that is where the actual experts in the field go. The general argument though is along these lines: https://www.quora.com/Does-a-hollow-sphere-of-mass-still-cause-GR-time-dilation-inside-it-even-though-there-is-no-net-gravitational-field.

Like this semi-articulated...

You are putting the cart before the horse.

It is not a spoof. The language being spoken in the video is Hmong, which would suggest the cave is located in southeast Asia. There are other examples of caves that have very different atmospheres than can be found on the surface. For example, the Movile Cave in Romania. That cave only has a concentration of oxygen between 7% and 10%, and carbon dioxide levels that are 100 times surface levels. The cave in Romania also has high concentrations of methane and hydrogen sulfide. Which may explain why you do not see anyone in your video actually entering the cave without protection.

Respectfully ... This entire discussion at hand is irrelevant. What should be discussed, (if possible) is the significance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is not about hunting. It is about the required necessity of a armed citizens ability to overthrow a bad tyrannical government. We can no more hack at the Second Amendment than we can discuss restricting Freedom Of Speech. Consider not having the right to post threads and opinions on this Fine Forum. Consider many real deal restrictive laws, rules and regulations PROHIBITING free speech under threat of prison. Let us take it some steps further. Freedom of Religion. Can you imagine machine gun toting death troopers storming into your place of worship and arresting or gunning down the preacher? Or you? We already have this regarding the many insanities of existing gun control laws. Very scary indeed. Or ... if you are not religiously oriented and many are not, consider armed government agents busting down your front door of your castle and seizing papers and possessions without a warrant or legal due process. Can you imagine that in the USA? We already have it with the many gun laws. The discussion at hand considering "Each Side Being Equal" is ridiculous and may indicate very limited knowledge of the US Constitution and what it means to US Citizens. If you do not live and work in the USA then some ignorance is acceptable. But NOT if you are a USA Citizen and use this Forum. Respectfully..

Unless the plot of Doctor Strangelove comes true I think we are ok. But that is a discussion for a different topic You are the only one to give a straight answer in this thread. Aside from being shocking(no offence intended), it also shows that your posts are objective and that you can see things from even extreme perspectives. Side note: Maybe he will be too sick to run one more time. Who knows.

Quantum physics is a branch of physics that works with the activities going on inside of atoms. They were wondering what was going on inside those things that were once thought to be solid. One big idea they came up with was that the energy of an electron depends on the frequency or wavelength. Scientists now say that electrons behave like waves, and fill areas of the atom like sound waves might fill a room. The electrons, then, exist in something scientists call "electron clouds". The size of the shells now relates to the size of the cloud. Basically, quantum theory is the study of the tiny little atoms that make up everything, they do not behave like solid objects you see before you, they have their very own set of rules, and this is why they are so fascinating.