MigL

If I have to tell you, you don't.

Don't know what you're so happy about. You realize that's only 31 posts, don't you ?

Wow, you and your wife really are 'Loony Tunes'.

Some of the best memories of my youth ( early 70s ) are of Saturday evening dinner. Me and my brother would prepare supper after school, always chicken and potatoes in the oven ( only thing we knew how to make ), and my mother would make a quick salad when she got home from work at 5 pm ( we had just immigrated to Canada a few years earlier ). The best part was, that we didn't have to eat at the table on Saturday evenings, but could eat in the living room while watching 'The Bugs Bunny/Road runner Hour'. Oh, and re-runs of 'Star Trek' at 7 pm. ( first episode I ever saw was 'Who Mourns for Adonis' with the 'God' Apollo )

"Is it wabbit season? I tought it was duck season." ( said in a porky voice )

You're going to the Mediterranean for two weeks and you're gonna read ??? Greece isn't it ? I can think of much better things to do. ( grilled octopus, Ouzo, and seeing all the little islands by boat and scooter )

Despite being aesthetically pleasing, I don't find it thought provoking, or inspirational. IOW I don't get it. Then again, I'm a simple kind of guy

Don't watch many. But of those I have watched, the PBS Digital Series stand out. They are 'professional' in production as well as content, and not as 'dry' as a lecture. They manage to keep my interest even on topics I'm sufficiently familiar with.

A radial trajectory WILL take you straight in. Its like an orbit through the center of the Sun. You're NOT coming out the other side.

What did you have in mind... Every city would have its own geosynchronous orbiting, artificial miniature Black Hole to be used as a garbage dump ? They'd have to put up a tall fence around it. Anyone falls in; there's no getting them out. As for 'landing' on a Black Hole, what would you land on ? There's nothing there. Our best theory says the event horizon is a mathematical construct, and the central singularity is a dimensionless point.

I could have sworn G Cantor used the terms 'denumerable' and 'non-denumerable' for countable and uncountable infinite sets respectively. I stand corrected. However the definition you use for 'absolute' infinity is certainly different from his, and even more so from later work by B Russel and J VonNeumann.

Hmmm... I don't recall G Cantor ever using the term 'Absolute Infinity'. If this is your own personal definition, maybe you should actually provide proof that it exists. ( as Georg did with his proofs of degrees of infinity )

What do you mean ? There is an infinity of decimal places between 0 and 1. But, getting back to the cookies... They are NOT impossible. This website hands them out every time I log on. ( although they leave a bad taste in my mouth )

Phi said... "We're used to tightening our belts/going to extremes in times of emergency" I think the gun related death rate in the US is an emergency. ( never mind the illegal immigrants at the southern border )

You would think they would standardize on one side or the other. If only to avoid the confusing messes at the gas pumps.

Space is simply space. It does not need to make a choice. WE need to make the choice as to which model we use, as the models used by GR and QT are currently incompatible. Perhaps I wasn't clear with my previous explanation... In QT, we can assign a co-ordinate system to a certain volume. That co-ordinate system is absolute and immutable. Quantum events happen on the stage of that co-ordinate system. In GR we can also assign a co-ordinate system to a volume ( more specifically volume with an orthogonal time dimension ). Yet that co-ordinate system is affected ( curved ) by mass-energy distributions within it. It is not absolute, and in effect, becomes part of, and modifies events. Romeo22 implies that space can only be one of the choices, the other must be wrong. He is confusing the models we use, and which have specific areas of applicability, with the reality. But he is correct in stating that the models of GR and QT use a different paradigm. ( and so we wait for Quantum Gravity to unify the two )

Quite right. It is more explicitly stated as GR does not require a background 'stage' on which events happen. The stage is considered part of the events, and is not absolute. ( note that this is space-time, not simply space ) Quantum theory, on the other hand, does have an absolute background 'stage' on which events happen. GR and QT are formulated differently, and that is one reason for the difficulty in formulating a Quantum Gravity theory. SString theory relies on a separate 'stage' like QT, but LQG tries to preserve the 'stage' independence of GR. ( and that's why I prefer it )

Any physical or mental trait associated with a certain group will follow a Gaussian distribution ( bell shape ), with the 'normal' being the section between 5% and 95%. If you compare any specific trait between genders ( or even between what some call races ), you will find large and variable amounts of overlap between the two distributions. Say we are considering the trait of physical strength. There is a large overlap between the two distributions for males and females; some wimpy men are much weaker than a typical female, while some Russian female shot-putters are stronger than even football players, as examples. The 'normal' may almost completely overlap, but the extremes ( the 0-5% and 95 -100% ) will not. The two bell shapes are slightly ( or more, depending on trait under consideration ) offset. IE the differences between gender ( or the trait we call race ) are only manifest in the extremes.

If I was a mailman in that area I'd be asking for danger pay. Shouldn't matter where the jury comes from, or where the trial is held. This kind of behaviour should offend/disgust anyone.

My gorilla friend says... "Its not the size; Its how you use it." What, I'm gonna disagree with a gorilla ?

I can keep my vision 'blurry' far longer than any of you. So long, in fact, that it never goes clear. But I have damage to my optic nerves, artificial lenses, and astigmatism due to eye surgeries.

The more advanced missiles, such as the MBDA Meteor, a beyond visual range air to air missile with a range of 100km, and used by the customer nations of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SAAB Gripen and F-35 of the Italian Air Force/Navy ( demonstrably more advanced than the Raytheon AMRAAM ), uses a solid propellant inside of a ramjet duct. When the solid propellant used for acceleration is used up, the ramjet kicks in for sustaining and terminal maneuvering. Older designs lacked this ability and could be defeated by hard maneuvering during the terminal approach to the target.

Interesting Koti. We have an electrical room in one of our buildings with a Halon fire suppression system. We ( JHSC ) had it taken off-line because of asphyxiation risks.

I'm making the argument that culture is also a factor in how we express our aggressive tendencies. And since America has a gun culture, AND plenty of guns, that is the usual way aggression is expressed.

the assertion made by OldChemE that 'entertainment' violence leads to more aggressive behavior is certainly true. America has a gun culture, and this aggressive behavior is manifested through the use of guns for violent actions, simply because of the numbers of available guns. The argument put forth by iNow concerning Japan is not a valid one as they do not have a gun culture, or vast numbers of available guns. However if you Google 'Deaths by Samurai Sword in Japan', you will get multiple hits of attacks, murder, suicide and even mass stabbings/murders. The 'fault' for America seems to lie with that old, wild, wild west, cowboy culture.