Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Outrider

  1. 2 hours ago, Estranged said:

    I've heard of that experiment, but how does the clock discrepancy translate to the twin paradox -- the assumption that the brothers age differently? The clocks going differently doesn't automatically mean there'd be a difference in age if you travel around with that clock or not, right? 

    This was very hard for me to wrap my mind around as well. Its not just the clocks everything is moving at a different rate including ageing processes. 

    If you look out at earth from your spaceship traveling at near light speed not only will you see clocks moving slower but the people will be moving slowly as well.


  2. 7 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

    The layer of oversight is the confirmation.  There are still more than 3,000 potential exoplanets waiting to be confirmed.  However, once they are confirmed then they should go into a database for confirmed exoplanets.  Now if NASA wants to create an additional criteria, like it must be confirmed and published, then they should create a database and specify it as such.  Instead they come up with a list of exoplanets and say they have been confirmed and nothing else.  Why are they being deceptive with their data?  Are they afraid that if it hasn't been published the exoplanet might not exist, even though it has already been confirmed?  Like I said, government stupidity.  It also makes me wonder if NASA has a political motivation for keeping certain exoplanets off their list.

    They are not being deceptive. They have different criteria. As it turns out my explanation was deficient. 




    The NASA Exoplanet Archive has adopted a policy of including and classifying all objects as planetary that meet the following criteria:

    • The mass (or minimum mass) is equal to or less than 30 Jupiter masses.
    • The planet is associated with a host star (i.e. not free floating)
    • Sufficient follow-up observations and validation have been undertaken to deem the possibility of the object being a false positive unlikely.
    • The above information along with further orbital and/or physical properties are available in peer-reviewed publications.

    An example of an object that has not been included is the companion to SCR 1845. This object was detected via imaging and has an estimated mass larger than the 30 Jupiter mass criteria stated above.


    Maybe thats stupid to you but I really don't see it that way.

  3. 4 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

    Except that isn't true. 

    Except that it is. 



    One reason, according to New Scientist, is that the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia lists exoplanets as soon as their confirmation is announced at conferences. The NASA list, however, only lists them once they've been published in a scientific journal. The NASA list will therefore always lag its European counterpart.


  4. 10 hours ago, T. McGrath said:

    In this particular case, I would probably lean toward NASA's figures, but I would want to know why there is a discrepancy of 154 confirmed exoplanets in 30 multi-planetary systems.  NASA's database includes more than just Kepler's discoveries.  What exoplanets has the Paris Observatory confirmed that we don't know about yet?

    The Paris catalog adds an exoplanet as soon as an announcement is made. NASA only lists them after they have been published in a scientific journal. 

    6 hours ago, Airbrush said:

    The TESS launch date is NLT June 2018 (the current working launch date is March 2018).

    "No later than" launch date as opposed to the working launch date of March.

    I too am very excited to see these missions inching closer. A bit miffed as well the JWST original launch date was 2013 and just last spring it was slated for October of this year. TESS has suffered similar setbacks but appears to be on track for now. I know. These are big one shot missions and its important they get everything right.

    If JWST lives up to its potential it should go a long ways in telling us how empty or how crowded our galaxy is. JWST is expected to give us spectroscopy of exoplanets. 

  5. Just now, StringJunky said:

    Nothing like getting personal. That's the problem with threads like this; too emotional.

    Not at all it's just if women are being abused because of the clothes they wear I would like to see some proof.

    By personal did you mean personal attack? I honestly have no idea why you would take it that way. 

  6. 4 hours ago, zapatos said:

    But the woman needs to assess risk to herself when it comes to sexual assault, just like she assesses risk when it comes to investments or eating spicy food.

    Having raised a fine young lady there did come a time when I needed to have just that talk with her. It was appropriate that I did so. But in the context of this thread it is highly inappropriate to bring it up. 

    6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    A dressed up person at a bar or party etc is appropriately dressed for that occasion but standing alone at a bus stop or walking home at night in that same attire may make them look out of place and, as a result, vulnerable...like a light to a moth.

    I hear this often and I often ask for a real life example of a woman getting raped due to her attire. Nobody ever gives me one. Would you like to be the first?


  7. 3 hours ago, CharonY said:

    In many cases I am pretty sure that the defense will attempt to discredit the victim.

    And the excuse is always "the defendant deserves a vigorous defence." So is it now time to set some rules in place to stop the victim blaming defence? I think so.




    Tegan Wagner, 29, has launched a bid to stop in-court victim blaming during an emotional interview on Nine's60 Minutes.

    The Sydney woman was a victim of the notorious Ashfield Gang Rapists - a group responsible for committing a series of attacks involving the indecent assault and rape of young women at knifepoint.

    During a gruelling cross-examination that lasted three days, Ms Wagner said she was grilled with more than 2000 questions and "made to feel dirty" like a "slut".

    "This was three days of hell," she said.



  8. On 12/18/2017 at 9:25 AM, Moontanman said:

    I am sorry, I didn't realise! 

    It's all good. I really enjoyed your article and hope you read mine.

    I have been fascinated with Europa and Enceladus for some time now. They are so much more interesting to me than all the other "worlds" in our solar system. I sure would like to know what is under all that ice. 

    Is anybody ok with us sticking a drill in? Anybody not ok with it? I mean we have already mucked up one habitable world. I am on the fence myself.

  9. I said on this very page looks like unpopular candidates all the way around. 

    1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

    She was more popular than either Biden or Sanders and recovered after the dip. How popular must she be in your opinion? You haven't presented a stander. She was more popular than any Republican candidate was among Republicans. 


    58 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Lol. Once more, this time with feeling!

    I can't call you wrong.

  10. 17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    . You supported the claim with national favorability but is the issue is how popular she is among Democrats why not a poll of democrats?

    I gave you both a national poll and a poll of democrats. 


    18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Back in 2015

    We are not back in 2015 and both your charts are supporting what I have said. In particular the bottom on shows that only 40 percent of her own party saw her as strongly favorable while they were out voting for her in the millions. 

    22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    Nonsense, I mentioned having voted for John Edwards in the 08' primary in an early post. That was clearly a mistake. 

    What is that a concession of?

  11. 8 minutes ago, swansont said:

    (how can it be whataboutism when it's an actual rebuttal of a claim of unprecedented activity?)

    Ok I apologize and withdrawal my comment. 

    5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

    In 2 Senate races, 2 primaries, and a general election; five separate elections she received the most votes because people just didn't like their options? Perhaps she is simply more popular than you care to admit.

    Perhaps she is. I guess we can just each have our own truth here despite mounds of opinion polls proving me right and mounds of votes proving you right.

    Typical political discussion on the internet no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

  12. 22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Is the a measurement more powerful than actual votes Politician depend on? 

    Well some certainly give us more information. Is it really so hard for you to understand that people often vote for candidates they see as flawed simply because they see the other option as even worse.

    22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    I actually haven't seen a single post on this forum from a single member here in the U.S. indicated they wish they could take their vote back. That in itself speaks volumes in my opinion

    Maybe thats the problem. You need to talk to some RL people about this. Poltics on MB's tend to be warped from the people on the street in my experience. Less defensive and less rigid.

    12 hours ago, swansont said:

    Unprecedented, right. Oh, except gwb43.com and georgewbush.com

    Well those were servers set up by organizations so private yes but private and personal no. But close enough for whataboutism. 



    As in Clinton’s case, the Bush administration e-mails were sought as evidence in government investigations. No no charges were filed and no criminal wrongdoing was found in regard to Clinton’s handling of e-mails. Bush aides were found in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas in the U.S. attorney firings investigation, but no punishment was handed down.

    I call them all guilty. How about you?

    12 hours ago, swansont said:

    How is this an end run around FOIA?

    Because in both cases people request information and don't get it. In HRC's case her lawyers decided what we did and did not get to see. Plus there is still more information that hasn't been handed out yet. They shouldn't have to wait years. 

    In the Bush case  there was a backup found. I think its being restored and sorted through. But yet again they shouldn't have to wait years.

    I will try to find what specific rule was broken.

    12 hours ago, swansont said:

    No, you don't. Private (non-government) communication is not something you are allowed to access.

    And a government employee is supposed to work out what is what not personal lawers.

  13. 2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    More gish gallop tactics.

    Not really.

    2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Put my comment in context by quoting the rest and answer the 2 questions asked immediately following what you quoted.

    Ask them again and I will try to pick them up. I honestly try to answer to every point but sometimes multiple posters make the same (in my mind) point. You are not going to always get your very own customized response. I also try a little harder for those that try to answer to all my points. You don't do that.

    2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    You implied that Democrats didn't actually like her. That was the context and I pointed out that no Democrat has ever received more primary votes than Clinton and that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million.

    That dosent show us why they cast those votes. I am only telling you what people tell me. Many feel like they didn't have much choice. 

    Just democrats this time during the primary. The first paragraph below is HRC and the second is Bernie.




    We can start with the Democratic side of the ledger, where Clinton's current net favorable rating of +36 among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents is based on 66% who give her a favorable rating and 30% who give her an unfavorable rating.

    He reached his personal net favorable rating apogee (+63) in late March/early April, and although it's been down slightly since then, his is still the most positive rating for any candidate of either party at this point, by a large margin.


    What the hay lets see what the republicans thought about Trump.


    On the GOP side, it's basically a pox on both your houses when it comes to Trump and Cruz. Both are doing poorly, on an absolute basis, compared with where they were in early January and compared with the Democratic candidates. Trump currently has a +9 net favorable rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, based on 52% favorable and 43% unfavorable ratings. Cruz is at +8, with 48% favorable and 40% unfavorable.

    I see unpopular candidates all the way around. Well except for Bernie and his score isnt exactly stellar.

    2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

     How unfavorable is Trump today in polling; worst ever for a first year President. Would you argue that means he is unpopular with conservatives? 

    Yep thats what I hear. Why did you vote for Trump? So Clinton would not get in. Why did you vote for Clinton? So Trump would not get in. You never hear these things?

    Somehow I think I will not be criticized for "everything Trump must be referenced in a negative light."

    2 hours ago, rangerx said:

    It's not a crime to use a private server either, if the information is in a public reporting stream. It's illegal to hide it. it's illegal to destroy specific evidence if summoned to provide it. Hillary is guilty of preempting a fishing expedition, a FoIA workaround and phony scandals or conspiracy theories cooked up by republicans , solely to assassinate her character. She had every right to protect herself. The current government and former opposition seem to have no problem with government intrusion or hostile foreign involvement when it comes to underhanded treatment of other parties. It's hypocrisy on stick, slathered in bullshit.


    BTW I don't agree with the use of private emails in any way. But putting them on your own server gives so much more control over what is wanted to be kept secret. You may not agree with why these watch dog groups want this information but it shouldn't be up to me, you or HRC to decide. Trump is getting the same treatment from liberal watch dogs. Although thess groups tend to be radical they do perform a valuable service. If you (as a public servant) do not want anything embarrassing to pop up don't do/write anything embarrassing. 

    Judicial Watch and others have been waiting two years and more for documents that should have been provided in months.




    Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, has more than 15 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits related to Mrs. Clinton’s emails still pending

    Jason Leopold, a journalist at Vice Media whose lawsuit helped force the release of tens of thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s messages in 2015 and 2016, still has an active lawsuit.

    And the Republican National Committee, which sued the State Department last year, still has active cases.



  14. 29 minutes ago, rangerx said:

    You do realize all the Trumps and their cronies use private email servers right? 

    From your link 



    There was no indication that the White House officials who used personal email maintained their accounts on a private server 


    35 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    he straw for me was all the stories from the time of Moore's alleged assaults, and how all the cops knew to keep ol' Roy away from the high school girls. It was common knowledge at the time he was 30 that he dated high school girls. And the topper for me was how his wife resorted to posting fake news to deflect from the accusations. Moore wants to stay in the game with a bad hand, and that means he's bluffing. He comes from the Trump mold of power and privilege, and he's just as used to lying as Trump is.

    Ok color me pleasantly surprised. I am sure now and feel even better about my vote tomorrow. 

  15. 26 minutes ago, rangerx said:

    Conservatives are not introspective when it comes to their own kind, ever. Just license to double down.





    Mr. President - we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism," Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) tweeted.

    Very important for the nation to hear [President Trump] describe events in Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by white supremacists," Rubio said on Twitter.

    The Senate's second-highest ranking Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), said not calling out neo-Nazis was personal for him, recalling his brother's death in World War II.

    "We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home," Hatch tweeted.





    "President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people's confidence in our institutions."

    It is the third time in recent weeks Corker has been highly critical of the President. 





    A top GOP operative criticized Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel's decision to support Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore during a recent dinner attended by party donors, Politico reported on Monday.

    Bobbie Kilberg, an influential Virginia Republican, told McDaniel in front of the other donors that she was opposed to the move, according to Politico.

    "There are some things that are more important than a vote in the Senate," Kilberg told Politico. "Some things are more important, such as what the party stands for."

    Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), told The Weekly Standard last week that the Senate GOP campaign arm "will never endorse" Moore.



  16. 3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    I think she is the victim of some far-fetched witch-hunts

    I agree some of the accusations against her have just been made up out of thin air but others have not.

    5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    For me, it's enough that she is part of the system that allows the extremist rich to take unfair advantage of everyone else, and I think her main opposition is simply a different set of extremist rich people who've conned you into demonizing her.

    Nobody is conning me. You stated very well what I am trying to illustrate. Both parties IMO are very corrupt at this point in time. Some days I think they always have been.

    How do we change this?

    13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    You turn her control of emails into an AUTOMATIC "end run around the FoIA"

    No I'm pretty sure there are still active FoIA lawsuits out there and even if they are not I do know at least one group had to resubmit because the information they wanted was hidden on a private server. 


    19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Moore has had a blind eye turned to his crimes because he was part of that system. What are you "far less sure" about?

    Because of the facts of the case and the timing of the allegations. Pleasantly surprise me and lay out a case for his guilt.

    It looks like the voters of Alabama will not turn a blind eye tomorrow. Moore has lost his comfortable lead and is now trailing by ten points in the latest polling. I hope it holds.

    Seriously Phi I think he probably is guilty but I also examine myself and find that some of the reason I feel that way is because I don't trust the uber wealthy. 

    So please tell me why you are so sure Moore is guilty.

  17. Well we can add democrat Alcee Hastings to the list of the accused. 




    Taxpayer funds to the tune of $220,000 were used to settle a lawsuit charging Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) with sexual harassment, Roll Call has reported.

    It’s the second reported instance of taxpayer money being being used to settle a sexual harassment claim against a congressman. Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) used $84,000 in taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment claim.



  18. 6 minutes ago, rangerx said:

    Americans are hung up on politics and free speech, at the cost of decorum, honesty and civility.

    I think its more the fact we that we do not demand decorum, honesty and civility from our politicians. If we think they can get the job done we hardly even ask for a shred of dignity from them. Trump is the prime example on the right. But I don't have to look to hard to find them on the left as well.

    Remember Anthony Weiner seven time democratic senator? He got caught sending women unwanted sexual pictures. He apologized and turned around and raised over 5 million dollars to run for mayor of New York.  Unsurprisingly he got caught again before he had a chance to be elected. Shame on those who supported him.

    IMO we should voluntarily declare those who commit crimes unfit for public office.


  19. 6 hours ago, swansont said:

    My objection still holds. HRC mishandled classified material, yet it was deemed not at a level where imprisonment was appropriate. Is she guilty or innocent?

    IMO guilty. HRC took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private server. This gave her a lot of control over her emails. A nice end run around the Freedom of Information Act.

    6 hours ago, swansont said:

    Moore dated teenagers as a thirtysomething, which is creepy. He is alleged to have committed offenses which cannot be prosecuted. Is he guilty or innocent?   

    Once again IMO guilty. But I am far less sure in this case however it is enough that I won't vote for him.

    6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    From White Water to Benghazi to her Emails how many times has Hillary Clinton been investigated? How many times have you seen her under oath before Congress being questioned by Republicans? Her taxes going back decades have been made public, her charity financials made public, tens of thousands of her emails have been made public, and etc. I don't think you can name a single politician whom you have seen so much private information on; seriously. Everything has been combed through 10 times over and no crimes found. Despite the "crooked" reputation who is more transparent?

    And time and time again documents come up lost or misplaced. Time and time again both her and Bill first deny everything and then as evidence comes out explain it away.


    6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    You are complaining she deleted some emails before you got to read them as i it is normal to have access to a politicians private emails

    Yes I do have that right under FOIA. I have the right for someone other than the politician to go through and decide what is revelant and what is not.

    8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

    Obviously millions of Democrats do like her and the arguments against that reality is merely meant to dismiss her and her supporters. I do not like Donald Trump yet never waste time arguing he isn't popular among conservatives; he clearly is. Meanwhile Clinton, who got millions more votes than Trump, is regularly said to be unpopular. I see that as a bit of propaganda. 




    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are no more likely to view Hillary Clinton favorably than they were before last year's presidential election. Forty-one percent have a favorable view of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, within the 41% to 43% range Gallup has recorded since November.

    Graph 1

    The latest poll, conducted June 7-11, finds that a majority of Americans continue to view Clinton unfavorably (57%), as they have in all Gallup polls on the former first lady and U.S. senator since January 2016.


    Perhaps we just have a different definition of popular.

    7 hours ago, rangerx said:

    The premise the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and a trial buy one's peers is lost on too many Americans.

    The courts owe them that not me. I not only have the right I have the responsibility to judge those who run for public office. 

    7 hours ago, rangerx said:

    It's greatly uncivilized to flip off right's to favor opinions on any matter and it's getting worse by the day.


    It wasn't that long ago you implied Reagan had some guilt in the Iran-Contra affair. What about his rights? You have also been all over Moore et al.

    You didn't flip off anyones rights and neither did I.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.