Leaderboard

I understand the desire for retribution and punishment. I feel it myself and it’s powerful. It crowds out my reason and logic. When I give sufficient space to my logic and reason, however, it’s clear that we need to be cautious around how we frame these issues. Specifically: Our main objective is to limit terrorism and to shrink their ranks. In that context, we need to encourage more of them to leave these terrorist organizations, to walk away and return to society as a productive member who has matured beyond their previous errors. To meet our goal, we need to provide MORE off ramps for people to leave terrorist networks and we need to provide MORE paths away from their mistaken choices of the past. It seems obvious to me that within any terrorist groups, there are sure to be members who don’t want to be there, who quickly realized they made a horrible mistake and who want to leave. By revoking citizenship and preventing thoughtful cautious methods of reintegration, we show them only that they’re stuck, that there is no hand reaching back when they reach out for help, and there’s no reason to abandon the cause... There are no alternatives so best to keep doing what they’re doing. This approach of making exit from terrorist organizations harder is shortsighted. It’s an obvious mistake. Let’s be authentic with our desire for revenge and retribution, let’s appreciate it for being valid and justified, but let’s also be wise enough to choose the better long-term path of having MORE options for these people to walk away from their mistaken decision, not fewer.

I've lived in such an area. Though some of the umbrellas lasted a while it didn't help; the wind blew the rain around and regardless of how I held the umbrella I ended up soaking wet. I bought a raincoat and a waterproof backpack That said, some of the umbrellas in @StringJunky's link has dual-canopy design. That kind of design works rather well as far as I know.

+1 but it still makes me want to fly over for a few Guinesses to slap that nonsense out of you

No need of being in doubt, because when you are alive death Is not there, and then where there is death ,means you are not there(alive) You can't feel anything

Protection of that tradition is going too far currently. The inability to even study the issue is nonsensical.

Which has nothing to do with the HUP

I think it is better to think of relativity describing the (relative) relations between times and distances. It turns out that this can be described in terms of geometry. For special relativity, where there is just relative motion, this geometry is "Euclidean" (it is the same geometry we use everyday). For General Relativity, this geometry is more complicated, and is the geometry we have to use on curved surfaces (where the angles of a triangle do not always add up to 180° for example). And it is the effect of those changed times and distances which causes the effect that we call gravity. Note that we normally think of gravity as a force. This is similar to the thing you have probably been told: "there is no such thing as centrifugal force". What that really means is that when we look at something spinning from our perspective, the force is inwards not outwards. But if you are in a centrifuge, or fairground ride, being spun around you will feel the force outwards. So the repsence of the force depends on who is measuring it. Gravity is like that: we "think" we feel a force because the curvature of spacetime is making us accelerate towards the ground. (There are some subtle questions here (that you probably don't want to get into in your essay!) such as: is spacetime really curved, os is this just a mathematical description of distances and times that happens to work!?) Yes (roughly). But ... why do those (virtual) photons get emitted and absorbed! (See what I mean, you can always ask another question!)

This seems to be a reasonable summary of what happened. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/we-dont-get-to-un-british-those-we-dont-like-mr-javid?CMP=fb_cif&fbclid=IwAR2bmsTj410uDN-glqAuGK5Sp6sXj1zC4Wg6pvRbj59xTr4ibb8Jg7GC-fk

I know this is for an essay, But I think it is legitimate to ask your questions in the main relativity section. Homework help requires you to show your working here, which is not appropriate at your level. So ask (send them a private message) a moderator to move this for you. There are some really good folks here with great knowledge of relativity. I don't know how what your timescale is but this book could have been written for you. My local public library has a copy. Note that Special Relativity is founded on two principles General Relaticvity introduces a third principle and also the Einstein Field Equations. Note the plural - there are 10 of them, usually rolled into one big one that you will not yet have the maths to work. Go well with the writing, and tell us the timescale.

With a big bomb, like we do now.

A better analogy is that religious people think of the soul like the tooth fairy, or santa claus since, while you assert it's effects can be seen, they actually cannot (whereas dark matter very much can).

... and Trump's still President.

AKA 24/7 Reality TV shows. Binge-watching all 21,650 seasons of Man vs Beast. You will LONG for death.

You guys are 'quitters'. Isn't there always something else you want to do ?

It calms me that one day I can just let go... It's the only thing that keeps me going; knowing that this life isn't forever... strange as it may seem. I used to take a lot of drugs to block out life, but now I take it full on and clear-headed because I know it's only temporary. Funny thing is that I'm enjoying life a lot more.

Today, couple hours ago, two young girls (20-25 y) visited me. They were from Jehovah's Witnesses. They gave me some bible ad. I took it. Took couple empty piece of papers and pen. And we sit on the floors. And asked them whether they "believe Universe was created by God?", obviously answered "Of course!". So, I asked "then why do not learn about Universe?", And started from pair production of electron-positron from high energy photon, wrote it on paper, wrote what is mass-energy of electron/positron, first I wrote 9.11*10^-31 kg, then I explained it's just round up, and exact value is 510998.928 eV/c^2 then I explained them what is proper speed of light (they didn't even knew 300,000 km/s), I explained them it's 299792458 m/s, then I started explaining conservation of charge in pair-production (e=1.602176565*10^-19 C). And how light turns to matter and anti-matter. And how to change from eV/MeV/GeV to Joules, and back. And from Joules to kg, and back. Then continued to annihilation of electron-positron, then to pair-production of proton-antiproton. Then to fusion of protons. Now girl surprised me,. She told me than Deuterium with charge +1e won't match with 2 proton also with charge +1e (I told her first that Deuterium is proton and neutron bound together). So she was actually learning/listening for real. I obviously congratulated her for it, and explained that from fusion of 2 protons, there is produced also positron and neutrino and 0.42 MeV energy. Then to how to create free neutrons.. Then to neutron capture, and radioactive decay... I asked them to gave their smartphone, and went to YouTube to show Cloud Chamber videos of radioactive isotopes and explained the basic cosmic rays-atmosphere reactions, producing secondary rays, explained pion meson production, and muons, and showing them on videos how they look like/behave.. That was probably the longest talk with girl I had in the last 10 years I will skip further details.. At the end, they knew how nuclear weapon and nuclear reactors (Uranium-235) do work.. She said something like "you made me feel like really stupid...", "That was not my intention... Did you learn how Universe is working today?" "Yes..."

Q. Why do so many newbies with obvious hypotheticals, as opposed to tried and tested mainstream models, have so much trouble discerning the difference? A. This is the difference. All of science is based on irreducible hypotheticals, the original inductive beginning of a theory or model by which we attempt to derive deductions. If these latter remain consistent the theory gains support, else we need to revise or abandon hypotheses. Mainstream hypotheses are like fashion or worse until science becomes technology. How much of Mainstream qualifies. What happened to phlogiston, or absolute time and space? Where was Hubble's evidence for Bigbangium, and why didn't Einstein propose the same when it was he who informed Hubble that the universe was expanding? The hypothesis was contrary to both theories of relativity, and still is, besides spitting out anomalies that caused CHANGES IN MAINSTREAM for decades! How much of science is actually applied in known technology across all fields? So why laud Mainstream when wisdom is justified by her children, and the folly is in your faces. Yet we worship a God that uses the credence of a small fraction to claim universal infallibility while lemmings march on. Q. Proposals without evidence are a dime a dozen. What evidence, observational or experimental, do you have to support your hypothetical claim against the tried and tested mainstream theory/model? A. As detailed, the pot calls the kettle black, with three fingers pointing back at itself! A spring cleaning of the entire hypothetical basis of all branches of science is required, where technology has yet to verify political/economic influence. This general swipe of snow and mist is by its nature unanswerable. I must restrict myself to specific questions with apologies. Q. Then you need an alternative explanation for all the evidence that the nucleus also contains neutrons. A. Why not propose that the nucleus consists of protons and mu mesons? Insufficient mass for electrons in the nucleus was contradicted by the Mainstream adoption of the evidence from Enola Gay to the world - a little too loud to (continue to) ignore. Relativistic electrons have the mass, and therefore carry the mass-energy. Q. 1. Electric charge has positive and negative charges (and equivalently for magnetic fields). Gravity doesn't. A. 1. I claim (with the same evidence used for Hubble’s famous hypothesis that Mainstream implicitly accepts) that an expanding universe says otherwise – that matter and antimatter repel. This voids the need for Dark Matter to supply the missing force. We might use the name for antimatter. Q. 2. Electromagnetic forces both attract and repel. Gravity doesn't. A. 2, See A. 1 Q. 3. Electromagnetism can be easily screened. Gravity can't. A. 4. For those who haven't heard the bomb (1945) yet - all force is one force - electric fields. Disturbances in the force are a result of the acceleration of charged particles. Magnetic force is a result of space contraction creating an imbalance in the fluxes from moving charges relative to the (observer protons) stationary charges. The mathematics reveals that (as suspected by Maxwell) the permeability constant (u) equals the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity constant (e) with the speed of light (c) squared. Electromagnetism is a very loose term and incorrect if I am right. We may need to rename light (in any inertial frame) as electro-magnetic-gravitational energy. Q. 4. Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't. A. 4. This is incorrect: F = G.m1.m2/r^2 looks much like F = 4.Pi.e.q1.q2/r^2. The difference is (present Mainstream) that m, unlike q, is only positive. I CONTEST THIS HYPOTHESIS, and have done so since I learned about antimatter in 1969. Einstein died in 1955. Antimatter (beyond positrons) was discovered in 1956, when the existence of the second material particle - the antiproton - became manifest to the scientific community. Without this Einstein was unaware that the universe consisted of both types of matter. Mainstream has voided this with 'evidence' of asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions to prop up Big Bang once again. The evidence seems very flimsy to me, considering the evidence of the exact opposite in so many ways. But antimatter balancing matter universally (materialisation from gamma rays indicates conservation of charge and mass by zero sum) was necessary to complete his Unified Field Theory. My proposal actually explains Einstein’s hypothesised gravitational and inertial mass equivalence principle, as well as the implied rest mass-energy equivalence as absolute potential energy in the gravitational fields of the universe. Q. 5. Etc. (This idiotic idea comes up with such tedious frequency, that I should really keep a list of these somewhere instead of typing it out every time...) A. 5. This is not Platonic dialogue. Must be Aristotelian. I have no doubt that you have and cherish pat rhetoric for argument without reason. There is no umpire in a chess game, if you wish to test your logic objectively. Q. "The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction." What!? A. Clearly the replies from Nelson's schoolyard bullies are "biff, biff, biff". Politicians in the making? Relying on rhetoric, not well verse in topics, any idea what you're talking about? (plagiarising Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". She probably understands Magnetism better than some.) Let's keep it logical and scientific, and a little less hypocritical, political and emotional, and keep the board level so the pieces don’t disappear. Science seeks Truth, necessary for Justice, if you cherish your Freedom and trust in your God by whatever definition. In the wrong hands it is our mutual extinction.