MigL

Thanks again for the comparison, RangerX. You seem to want to prove every point I make. What if, during the H Weinstein discussion, everytime someone mentioned what Harv had done, I countered with... "Sure, but at least he's seeking treatment, look at what Louis B Mayer did to Judy Garland, and got away with it" Would that have been seen as a fair comment ? Or would you have jumped all over it as I'm doing with you ?

Just two thoughts. Other than the fact that this is just another of D Trump's inane announcements, and is probably designed to draw our attention away from his problems ( if he has the capacity to plan such a thing )... Over 40 years of NOT recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, has not brought peace. This will not change anything !

You're being disingenuous, Ten oz. You can draw an association between just about anything. The fact that A Franken is in a position of power, as a comedian/entertainor or a Senator/politician is what allows him to disrespect women. And the fact that it doesn't happen just in politics, but with producers like H Weinstein, newsmen like C Rose and M Lauer, and so many others is proof that it is not a symptom of political ideology. There are plenty of threads about Democrats vs Republicans as there are about D Trump. Why does every thread have to devolve into a discussion about the polarization of American politics or D Trump's idiocy ? As I've stated previously, the polarization , which you and others seem to embrace, is what got us into this mess ( presidential idiocy ) in the first place. But if you guys want to make every thread about Republicans vs Democrats, or about D Trump, then knock yourselves out. I've said my piece and you guys ( like waitforufo ) wanna keep contributing to the problem. Majority rules.

Authoritarian ?? No, not at all. But I am questioning your comprehension.

I'm sorry iNow, but if this thread is about Democrat morals as opposed to Republican morals, I must have misread the OP.

Same strategy, eh Ranger ? "Yeah, but waitforufo did it first" What's next? " Sure I killed someone, but the other guy killed ten" A Franken, the politician, did not get turfed by his party because of his politics. ( I thought that was his true calling. He was good at it, not as a mediocre comedian ) He was forced to resign because A Franken, the man, mistreated women. Democrats ( and Republicans ) have no bearing in this conversation unless you're doing a comparison or drawing equivalency.

And I'm sure there are people (whether Republican or Democrat ) who don't have to take responsibility for their bad actions because they never behaved badly towards women. So what if he takes responsibility for his actions ??? He did commit them ! I ( and his victims ) don't care if he's a good or bad Politician, Democrat or Republican. He's a flawed human being who happens to be in a position of power, and preys on women. Why do you insist on getting down in the mud with waitforufo, and making this a discussion about which politics is more 'honorable' ? I don't remember politics being mentioned at all in the OP ( although we all knew ), so why take the bait ?

The Gravity probe B results are very close to the expected results predicted by GR, Mordred. GR has frame dragging and a vanishing torsion, while Einstein-Cartan has torsion. Doesn't the GPB result for frame dragging ( from your post ) put a nail in the coffin of Cartan torsion ? Or can a third model provide both ?

And again RangerX... Right now D Trump would take Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun if it would help save him from the looming impeachment. But what does that have to do with A Franken and his attitudes towards women ?

Just as clarification of my stance... When we discussed H Weinstein, there was no mention of his political affiliation. The man was simply a pig, just like K Spacey, Louis C K, C Rose, and so many others are. No one gives a damn whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Their victims certainly don't. But Waitforufo tosses the bait, and some people take the bait, and make it a political discussion, rather than one of powerful people preying on helpless victims. Its interesting that as a parting shot A Franken did exactly the same; he brought up D Trump, in saying "I'm resigning, yet a man who admitted assault on tape is in the White House" ( paraphrasing ), as if he feels unjustly treated. I wonder if his victims feel he is being treated unfairly ?

Fermions can also 'pair up' so that they exhibit integer spin and, as such, obey Bose-Einstein statistical rules.

Haven't read the article you posted Mordred, but I would agree with Strange and Beecee. What mechanism would stop the further collapse once neutron degeneracy fails ? And if neutron degeneracy doesn't fail, there is no need for an event horizon.

But I'm not talking about the politicians. I'm talking about members of this forum. I've often stuck up for Waitforufo, as have you, but we both know that this thread about A Franken was started to vilify Democrats. The fact that Franken is a Democrat has no bearing on the matter; If he did the things he admits to doing ( and has apologized for ), he is not the person most of us thought he was. By the same token, RangerX responding " Yeah, but what about the Republicans and their President " is an attempt at equivalency, or rather one-up-manship. " Sure our guy did this, but yours did much worse ". Does he think that matters to Franken's victims/accusers, or that, the fact there's worse people than Franken, somehow make it better ? There are plenty of threads where we can discuss what a horrible human being D Trump is. Or some other Republicans. But this thread is about A Franken. Not the Senator. Not the Democrat. But the human being who has made, and acted on, some pretty bad decisions.

I apologise for the neg-rep accusation. It was unwarranted. I 'distance' people who don't abide by the rules of a civil society. I don't 'distance' labels like liberal/Democrat or Conservative/Republican. (That's what got America to this bad situation ) I don't accuse people of false narratives, and in the next line say... "I'm sure you'll insist otherwise, then insist you never insist in the next breath" Stick to what I actually say, not what you think I'll say.

TBH I always assumed RangerX to be much younger than myself ( I'm 58 ) I was just reading a newspaper article about M Lauer and some radio personality that was recently fired ( forget his name ) for some indiscretion where he touched a woman's back. The article specifically mentioned that he was a Democrat. In what other nation on Earth is a person's political affiliation responsible for their inappropriate behaviour towards women ? Why is American politics so polarized that each side tries to vilify the other with the worst human traits ? I don't agree with Waitforufo's OP. Other than the fact that Franken disrespects women, I couldn't care less about his politics. I have an intelligent, beautiful niece, and I wouldn't want her to be groped or disrespected by a Republican or a Democrat. Similarly, RangerX's arguments smack of " so what if a Democrat did this, look at what a Republican President did ". And he can deny it all he wants ( or try to win the argument by down-voting me ) , but it is 'whataboutism', and polarizing and divisive politics. ( and TBH I always assumed RangerX was Canadian; yet he fits in so well with American politics ) Oh, and I instill two different drops in my eyes for my Glaucoma ( that's why Clint squints ), but was recently added a water pill to help drainage/reduce pressure. Sometimes getting into a bathroom on time isn't funny at all.

How is it derogatory if he's taken full responsibility for it ? That makes him a pig, and does not matter if he's a Democrat, Republican, Senator or President. People are judged by their own actions, RangerX. You admonish Waitforufo for bringing in political affiliation, yet you do it every chance you get. ( and that's what I commented on ) Could the piss running down your leg be your own, due to senility ? ( sorry, couldn't resist, hope you know I'm joking )

Isn't this the 'whataboutism' that you're always complaining about, RangerX. This is a thread about A Frankin, just another pig who takes advantage of women. I have nothing to say about him, so I haven't made any comments. Why do you feel the need to say " but what about the behavior of D Trump " ( another pig who happens to be president ) Trump's behavior in no way excuses Frankin's. You can't complain when others do it, if you do it yourself.

IIRC, Strange is right ( again ). I don't recall where I saw the math, I'll have to take a look, but I recall that the max angular momentum, or the max charge allowed to a BH does not result in the 'explosion of that BH, but rather, the shedding of the event horizon. As this would leave a possible naked singularity, its probably not physically possible.

Sorry Steve; you're absolutely right. The proper terminology is the first thing you forget when its not used regularly. Thanks for the correction.

As far as I know static, non rotating Black Hole would be almost impossible, as any object, having even the slightest rotation ( almost all astronomical objects do ), would see that rotation amplified immensely during gravitational collapse. Charge itself is extremely hard to retain for a collapsing body which sheds some of its mass in a ( super )nova explosion, as the EM force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity at the atomic level. It would get rid of any excess charge way before the collapse. The only physical ( viable ) solution seems to be the rotating, non-charged Kerr solution. But of course I could be ( and have often been ) wrong.

I believe what Dubbelosix is really asking, is how does a system go from being completely reversible, where you can't tell forward progression in time from backward progression, to one that is irreversible. Whereas the constituent atoms of the egg can just as likely fly apart as move together, the egg itself , having fallen off the table and breaking up, will never spontaneously put itself back together again. ( not even with the help of all the king's horses and all the king's men ) The thing about 'random' is that you can never prove if a process or sequence is random, only if it isn't.

The 'fictitious' centrifugal force is at play here, because of the rotating frame, and is equivalent to Mrw^2, where M=mass, r=radial distance and w=angular speed. In the corners both r and w are larger, so they feel a greater apparent force. So, yeah, walking to the center of a face would be walking 'up-hill' and water would pool in the corners.

The radial distance to the corners of the cube is larger, so the angular speed is different as is the apparent force. And pressurization is easier with smoothly curved surfaces as opposed to sharp corners.

When an object moves through the air, it compresses the air molecules ahead of it. These pressure pulses ( essentially a sound wave ) are able to move forward at the speed of sound, and impact other molecules to move them out of the way. When an object is moving supersonically, the compressed molecules are no longer able to travel ahead and move subsequent molecules out of the way. The pressure pulse 'piles up' ahead of the moving object and creates a shock wave. This shock wave is in the shape of a boat's wake, except its conical, and the faster the speed ( supersonic ), the more acute the angle of the 'V', or cone. All along this 'V' there is a steep pressure gradient, which get weaker the farther away you are along the 'legs' of the 'V'. A large object, like an F-111 aircraft, which can fly supersonically ( M 1.2 ) at 200 ft altitude, would cause considerable damage/injuries if flown over a city. It is said that if the squadron of F-111, which attacked Lybia in the 80s, hadn't dropped any bombs, but had just flown supersonic over the target, they could have caused more destruction than the precision guided bombs, and possibly have taken out Muammar Gaddafi.

Some of you, in your rush to pillory Waitforufo, are not reading his posts. ( the only one who understood is iNow ) He's not claiming that the car driver should get off, on the contrary, he calls him a murderer; He is saying that, with the way the Justice system works, there is a distinct possibility that a murderer might be set free. Its not like it hasn't happened before. ( have a drink of 'juice' and think about it )