MigL

I especially like the part where you state that being gay is a natural thing, because many species do it in nature. And the extrapolation you make from this, is that it is OK, since it is 'natural'. And I won't argue with that; it doesn't affect me and provides fulfillment in other people's lives. Live and let live ( that is MY justification ). Yet you fail to mention that in nature, all species reproduce as fast as they can, until they outstrip the ability of their environment to supply them ( food, water, predators, etc. ). Then 'nature' steps in and kills off a whole lot o them, until their population can be provided for again. You fail to mention the predator/prey relation that most species have in nature. How compassionate is the predator to the prey ? Sometimes even within the same specie, there is 'warfare' even more terrible than between humans ( at least we have some rules for military engagements ), and sometimes the sick and infirm ( or even the young ) are sacrificed to predators, to save the healthy herd. All of this is 'natural', and done by countless species. So, I don't understand, why aren't you using the same argument that you used for homosexuality, to justify selfish, predatory, self serving behavior . You instead condemn this behavior in humans, even though it is as 'natural' as homosexuality. I think you need a better argument. ( and to speak for yourself )

From your link, INow… "Seafloor hydrothermal vents ( eruption of volcanic rocks at the mid-ocean ridges ) support ecosystems with enormous biomass." ( paraphrased/rearranged by me ) What depths are we talking about, and what is the pressure at such depths ? More importantly, does water boil at that pressure ? ( obviously not, since these biomass live and rely on water for their energy red/ox reactions )

You do know that brass is relatively soft and the act of 'wiping' across the socket ( or other ) contact removes any oxidation. It is usually dirt/grime that prevents this wiping action, and causes bad connections, Or is this for aesthetic considerations ?

Hummm… You know what happens to water when it boils ( at 100 deg ) ??? It becomes steam vapor, and expands approx. 1600 times compared to water at 20 deg . What would you think happens to cellular membranes when forced to expand 1600 times ? ( and how would you bio-engineer a resistance to boiling ? )

One could argue that the reason for America's nuclear arsenal is a deterrent to the Russian ( and also Chinese ) nuclear arsenal, and has been for 70 yrs. ( I assume you've noticed Russia's increased ambition/aggressiveness as of late, so we could soon be back in a 'cold' war ) But if the US had wanted to 'nuke' North Korea, they could have easily done so for about 55 yrs, since 1953, before NK gained any nuclear weapons. ( albeit with a lot of SK casualties, and delicate diplomacy with China ) So who exactly, is the NK nuclear arsenal a deterrent to ? And if not a deterrent, are they a first strike weapon, or simply a means of extortion ?

Once the Bekenstein Bound is exceeded, the original information ( mass-energy ) collapses into a BH and throws up a 'curtain' which limits access to the interior of the Event Horizon. This 'curtain' is one way only; Mass-energy can enter, but cannot leave. So that while mass-energy ( information ) can still travel to the interior of the EH, The only change it can make is to the area of the EH by increasing it. The Bekenstein Bound is only valid up to the point where it is exceeded, and collapse to a BH is mandated. ( I would think that is evident in its name, 'Bound' as in boundary.

While the "cat in the box' interpretation has its flaws, I think Carrock was specifically discussing which interaction collapses the wave function. And how they are all suitable ( but flawed ); whether it's the radioactive decay, opening the inner box, or the outer box.

You'd better open those damn boxes and feed the poor cat. No cats were harmed, my a*s ! ( I'm a cat lover; what can I say )

Yeah, you're right of course, but its not like throwing a ball up in the air; it doesn't slow down, come to a stop, change direction and speed up again. What's Christmas pud ? There are two classes of things; those which can be in an inertial frame, and those that can't. Things that can be 'framed', can accelerate and stop according to forces. Things that can't, are constrained to move at c ( the speed of light ). Since 'frameless' things can never be at rest, talking about their rest mass is non-sensical, so we call them massless things, and a photon is one such thing. There are properties that all things have in varying amounts, mass and energy, which are like two sides of a coin, and are closely related ( by E=mc^2 ). All things ( because of quantum effects ) need to have a minimum amount of energy, but it doesn't seem to work that way with mass. And of course, any moving energy is the same as moving mass; both have momentum. This is why we can say that a photon, while having NO rest mass, has the equivalent of mass at its natural speed, c .

The paper's conclusion/discussion acknowledges that only classical GR is considered, and why quantum effects are not. It seems to me that if this is a viable approach, and that no singularity is encountered in shape space such that world lines do not terminate, but change orientation at the 'Janus' point, then this should also be applicable to Black Hole homogenous collapse and their singularities. BH singularities are not strictly in the past, however, as is the BB singularity, and separated from us by 14 Bill years. If world lines can extend through the 'Janus' point with a ( possible ) matter/anti-matter reflection, should we not expect traffic through BH singularities, and vastly differing properties to BHs ?

All this number/counting theory is fine, but is it applicable ? As you examine smaller and smaller features, you eventually get to Planck scale. Past this point, space-time has been described as 'quantum foam' by J A Wheeler. This quantum foam has lost all aspects of geometry; the three spatial and one time dimension are no longer existent. events are 'everywhere' and 'anytime'. The journey back towards t=0 is similar. You shrink space-time to a dimensionless point at t=0. But we don't necessarily have to go back that far. At some time before reaching that dimensionless point, we again lose all geometry, and the universe is a quantum foam where time and space has no meaning. IOW before the emergence of the geometry ( at around the Planck scale ) that makes our universe measurable, time had no meaning, and we cannot say anything about the duration of that era and state. Of course you can mathematically get around this. See Moontanman's post in Science News about the possibility of time existing prior to the Big Bang.

From a purely theoretical viewpoint... We have massive particles that interact with the Higgs field, and massless particles that do not. The particles that do interact, gain the property of mass through the Higgs mechanism. This is an energetic interaction, and like all others, there is a certain threshold that this quanta of action must meet for the interaction to be realized. Would that not indicate that the property of mass would only be evident above a certain threshold, I.E. mass is quantized ? I'm still trying to come to grips with the Higgs mechanism, so I have my doubts about this. ( Timo was always good for clarifying Higgs interactions, if he's around )

Not sure I understand the problem. The Bekenstein Bound is the maximum entropy ( or information ) that can be stored within a given volume of space. Upon exceeding this limit, that volume must necessarily collapse into a Black Hole. It was Bekenstein and Hawking who introduced the idea that A BH's entropy, or the information it contains, is stored on the surface of the event horizon. I.E. as the Bound is exceeded more and more, the area of the event horizon keeps getting larger and larger. The conditions inside the event horizon, and the original mass-energy that underwent collapse, are no longer relevant to discussions of entropy and information.

I also think she would look stronger if she stood her ground. ( not that I think she doesn't ) You wouldn't have anyone talking to M Thatcher that way, and not getting an earful right back.

I'm not trying to make this about sexism towards men. ( before someone starts throwing 'false equivalences' at me ) Rather, if you go looking for sexism ( or racism, or any other kind of bigotry ) where there is none, you will find it, because it is a perceived offence, and you've already made up your mind that its there. Why not treat everyone like a human being, don't assume the worst about them, let them know if something they said has offended you, and give them the chance to act like a human being by stopping the offending actions, or words. If this J Corbyn guy is as straight up as our British forum members say he is, I'm sure he would have apologized, had E May voiced her objections. But, these are just my opinions.

Thanks John and Tom. Never had the opportunity to look into that. ( so I said, off the top of my head )

I have spent much time in the States Ten oz, and while you don't hear 'stupid man' too often, you do hear 'that man is stupid', which is consistent with use as an identifier. You do get, in popular media such as tv commercials, the implication that men are stupid. They won't ask for directions when lost. They can't boil water or cook anything. The don't clean up after theselves, or do laundry properly. They are basically useless without their better half ( a woman ). Etc. Etc. ( even though it is often true, it is generalizing, and not indicative of all men ) My take on this is " Don't get your knickers in a knot" But that might be considered sexist. So if a comment makes you feel uncomfortable in any way, let the commenter know how you feel and ask him/her to stop. Most decent humans don't like to make others uncomfortable, and will stop. Situation resolved. Those that don't stop are jackasses, and beyond redemption, and probably best avoided. I wonder, if E May had immediately made it known to J Corbyn that the comment distressed her, if he wouldn't have immediately apologized, and it may never even have made the news.

Once a BH is formed ( mass-enrgy collapses through the Schwarzshild radius ), the entropy is encoded on the surface area of the event horizon ( which is at the Schwarzschild radius ). it does not follow the further collapse to a possible point.

True, but we are only just now developing the means to detect extra-solar atmospheres. Previously the only definition would have involved distances from the parent star where enough radiation is received to keep water liquid. I'm assuming, of course. X-posted with Sensei

Is the 'habitable' zone usually defined as the min and max orbits around a star where temps are such that water is in a liquid state ? I don't think atmospheres are considered. ( water would not be liquid on a planet with no atmosphere at 70 deg C )

Just off the top of my head... While CO2 bonds absorb radiation peaking in the infrared range, water molecule bonds absorb radiation peaking in the microwave range. So while the effects are of consequence, water vapor is not as efficient for the 'greenhouse' effect.

Absolutely right. Civilizations may come and go in the time it takes for a signal to reach another civilization. Consider that a relatively nearby star like Epsilon Fornacis, at almost 100 LY distance, if it had intelligently inhabited planets, would only be receiving our earliest EM broadcasts from early in the past century; and any reply they might send our way would be received early in the 22nd century. Is there a chance we may not be here to receive the reply ? Now imagine a star 1000 or 10000 LY distant. What are the chances of us still being able to receive an EM signal ? ( think about where we were 10000 yrs ago )

Not even sure if this is a valid approach. Math, and geometry, are 'tools' we use to build the model ( in physics ). If you are asking how the probabilistic and non-commuting nature of Heisenberg's UP affects various types of geometries, I'm not sure it does. You may as well ask, how do numbers change at the quantum level. The application doesn't affect how a hammer works. Sometimes you need a different tool, like a saw, for different circumstances. If on the other hand, you're asking about the geometry of space-time at the quantum level, some of the best minds in Physics are wrestling with variations of that question, as it leads to Quantum Gravity.

"it was an attack" is certain. "gender was used as a weapon" is open to interpretation. ( but that's also an opinion ) Didn't know leap years came that often, INow