MigL

Oh come on, INow… Let me bask in the glory of finally starting a topic which has lasted more than a page.

GR can be interpreted as a field theory where geometry is the field. What is the distinction ? But I see the point about gravity being an apparent force ( inertial or fictitious like centrifugal or Coriolis ) , as it is only manifest in certain types of frames of reference.

Well don't keep us in suspense. What is this multinational company you've invested in ? ( mine is in my profile )

On a somewhat related note, some charges against H Weinstein in New York state, brought by L Evans, have been dropped. Not because he is innocent ( or guilty ) of them, but because of mishandling/coaching of the accuser's statement/testimony. ( thank goodness there are quite a few accusers/charges, otherwise Harvey might get a Supreme Court appointment too )

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.

Differing definitions BeeCee... In relativity there is no background stage on which events take place. Space-time is simply a co-ordinate system, and, as such, it can be an empty co-ordinate system. Quantum field theory does make use of a background stage, which is by definition, filled with fields. So an empty space-time is meaningless in QFT.

And significant effects ( non-trivial ) of the kind you are speculating about,would involve serious ( definitely non-lab based ) amounts of mass-energy. You could probably achieve those effects with ( many ) orders of magnitude less energy using methods other than frame dragging.

I also got differing definitions of derivatives in high school and university. But, being in Physics, and not needing that stubborn trait of Mathematicians to define, and re-define everything, I simply use them as a tool. ( I don't define a hammer when I bang in a nail )

Take Ten oz's advice... Save a little more, enough for a down payment, invest in real estate. Re-invest the gains in value. Make your money work for you. You won't become filthy rich, but you'll be more than comfortable. In the early 80s, I had about $25000 saved. Older war-time homes ( built in the 40s ) were selling for about $25-35000. But interest rates were as high as 16-18%, which made investment kind of scary for a person in their early 20s without a good job. Three years later, after the recession, these same homes were selling for $75-90000. Had I taken the risk and invested $5000 ( down payment ) on five such homes, and rented them out, I could have increased my 'wealth' by more than an order of magnitude. To this day, I still kick myself for not taking the risk.

A civil war will not happen again in the US. I have faith in my American brothers; They can be led astray, but they'll come to their senses eventually. Civil wars are usually about the simplest reason, money and wealth. The American Civil War was not about slavery, it was about a system that allowed the accumulation/retention of wealth in the South. I see the next civil war in China. The most billionaires of any nation, and over a billion people living on $5 per day. Eventually those billion people are gonna demand their share of the pie.

Not necessarily a SATA cable attached to the mainboard. You can get SATA to USB cables which will attach the hard dive to your USB port, saving the trouble of having to re-open your case ( or if you're using a laptop )

Just reload windows. If the computer hasn't run since Win10 came out, it'll be doing a load of updates anyway. You can reload Win10 with the option of saving your files, or if you don't need them, a fresh installation.

It isn't done because, as you rightly say, Ten oz, politicians are looking out for their careers, not the country. Can you imagine how long a politician's career would last in the US, if they proposed gun legislation, or pot for that matter ? They take the easy road and have unaccountable, appointed-for-life judges make the hard choices, that often disagree with the people's wishes, and then claim its out of their hands.

The hearings were a sham; where politicians give the appearance of doing something without actually doing anything, and proceed to do what they would have done all along. B Kavanough was never in any danger of losing the appointment, no matter what games the Republicans ( and Democrats ) played. That's the sad state of American partisan politics. That being said ( and I have on numerous occasions ), I find C Blasey Ford more likeable, believable and sympathetic than B Kavanough, who gives the impression of being a spoiled, arrogant man-child. But these are just personal OPINIONS. I would never base guilt or innocence on personal opinion. Even the fact that he may have lied about some things ( possible depending on your definition of lying; C B F is allowed not remembering, why isn't B K ? ) does not mean he committed or attempted rape. The only way we'll get to the bottom of this mess is if criminal charges are filed. Then at least we will possibly know. But B Kavanough will unfortunately still be a Supreme Court Justice.

In spherical polar co-ordinates, r specifies a sphere about the origin, of radius r. The theta and phi angles specify the position on that sphere analogous to latitude and longitude As Studiot has mentioned, the example that comes to mind is the Hydrogen atom solution, using separation of variables, of the wave equation in spherical polar co-ordinates.

OK. So you only consider it a problem when Republicans stack the Supreme Court ? Please elaborate.

It would be best, Ten oz, if we didn't err at all. ( just wishing )

But he has been partisan in the past. Stringy. And his recent tirade against Democrats, and the Clintons in particular, can't have escaped your notice.

That quote applies to the wave nature inherent in Quantum Mechanics. You are trying to apply it to relativity, which is a purely classical theory. IE not applicable.

Stored potential energy does not depend on any other factors other than height and mass. The bridge is supported/elevated, i.e. at height, so, if it loses its support, there is a huge exchange of potential energy for kinetic, i.e. it drops to the ground. With the resulting large energy exchange when it hits the ground. The raindrop is purely incidental. You would get the same result with no input of energy. Just step off the roof of a building. you'll still make quite an impact when you hit the ground.

The recent nomination of B Kavaaugh to the Supreme Court highlights and magnifies the problem with the highest court in the land. Judges are appointed to the Supreme Court by a Government, when the opportunity arises, as an extension of the government's ideology. Republicans nominate extremely conservative judges, while Democrats nominate progressive ( or activist, depending on your viewpoint ) judges and since appointments are for life, the Supreme Court can be right or left leaning for many changes of Government. Once a majority is established in the Supreme Court, laws passed by a government are either 'rubber stamped' by the Court, or modified ( even rendered invalid ) by the Court, depending on whether the Court leans Republican or Democrat. In effect, the laws of the land are decided, not by elected politicians ( and by extension the populace because we vote politicians in and out of office ), but by appointed, unaccountable judges. We have a similar problem here in Canada, but it is much more well-behaved ( like all Canadians ), and nowhere near as partisan as it is in the US. Do you consider this a problem ? Or only a problem hen the Court is stacked against your ideology ? And is there a solution to this problem, such as election or limited terms of Supreme Court Judges ?

People are starting to argue with reputation points. I see more and more negatives, on both sides, even for valid points which deserve deliberation. It is a very sensitive subject but, I have come to know that everyone involved in this discussion is a sensible person. Discussion leads to understanding, so if you want your viewpoint understood, discuss it. Don't neg rep opposing views, they're just trying to make their viewpoint understood.

As much as we all love to hate D Trump, Rangerx, this thread is not about him. Or even about B Kavanough specifically. ( he was just a convenient example in the news ) It is about anyone , male or female, accused of sexual assault, and how far are we reasonably willing to believe the accusations of the victim, WITHOUT actual evidence/proof. Justice is not statistical. If 19 people have been acquitted, the twentieth is not automatically guilty because of the 1 in 20 statistic. Statistics are fine for data collection, but are in no way indicative of guilt or innocence. Each case should be decided on the merits of the evidence/facts. That is the basis of due process and the foundation of our justice system.

Let's see... Black men are convicted at a higher rate than white men, so if you're a black man protesting his innocence should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? Of course, anything else would be racist. Men are convicted of sexual assault at a much higher rate than women, so if you're a man protesting his innocence, should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? By saying the woman should be believed at all times, you are saying that the man shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. Or the presumed innocence until proven guilty. That seems like a valid comparison to me. ( I'm 59 yrs old, if we're comparing ages ) Edit: Thanks Zap, I wasn't aware the appointment was so 'final'. What if he's charged, convicted and goes to jail ?

A lot of developments in the day I've been away... But maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am with the American Judicial and Political system can explain something to me. If C Blasey Ford has B Kavanough charged with attempted rape, she makes her case by providing the evidence/facts, and he is convicted ( possibly doing jail time ), can he keep his Supreme Court seat ? I would think he is at least disbarred, meaning he can no longer be a judge. So, why are the allegations not being brought to the criminal justice system ? Not doing so gives the impression that, now that the nomination has been confirmed, there is no chance ( or evidence ? ) of securing a conviction against B Kavanaugh. Her name and story has already been put through the public domain grinder ( against her wishes ), and people who believe her should be urging her to file criminal charges. Edit: Sorry Ten oz, just saw your request while I was reading back... I did not say planted evidence, which as you say, is a criminal act. I suggested she 'planted disinformation', something most politicians are very good at.