MigL

There are NO relativistic effects in the rest frame. If the earth was at rest, or moving at 0.9c ( with respect to what ? ), you would weigh exactly the same 200 lbs.

As far as I can tell Itoero is NOT making the argument that homosexuality is good or bad. His argument is simply that hormonal changes in the womb play a factor ( pretty much accepted science ). The 'stretch' is that premature birth cause hormonal changes, which seems to be like putting the cart ahead of the horse, to me.

Unrealistic, maybe. But Jennifer Lawrence sure looked good.

No. you wouldn't. You would weigh as much as that planetoid's rest mass dictates, as you are in the same frame. You and the planetoid's space-time curvature ( gravity if you will ) are moving along with it. you are in the same frame, so essentially at rest within it.

An observation is, by definition, an interaction. Any interaction causes collapse. So, if a plant interacts, it causes collapse. ( does not imply plants have consciousness )

Without going into all the math, Koti... Assume you're on earth and you weigh yourself to be 200 lbs. Then we put you on a small planetoid which we speed up to have a relativistic mass equivalent to Earth's mass. You again weigh yourself. Do you think you would still weigh 200 lbs ?

That's a little confining, Delta. faraday did quite a bit to advance electromagnetic theory. He used hardly any math, but rather 'lines of force' in his models. But you're right, any complex model, such as a four force unification would need a mathematical model. Not a simple wire frame and styrofoam model.

No, this is typical politically correct, censor the news that don't fit in with your 'progressive' world view. A simple google search of 'STD in non whites' brings up the CDC results for racial and ethnic minorities for 2015 and 2014 in the US. And they are elevated. The reasons are many, ranging from lack of education to reduced access to medical services. Denying the problem exists is a very good way to deny helping the people who need it most. cross posted with the others.

I don't quite understand... If she sees greens as yellows and yellows as greens ( which doesn't happen with colour blindness ) she would still be able to see that nasty message. She would simply see green text on a yellow background instead of yellow text on a green background. Did all the adults in her life play a mean trick on her by telling her, since she was little, that the colour yellow is 'green' and the colour green is 'yellow' ?

In a vacuum there is no terminal velocity. The acceleration of any test mass is solely dependent on the mass of the Earth ( little m cancels out from ma=GmM/r^2) and radius. While in air, when the gravitational force is equal to the drag force, there is no more acceleration. And since drag is NOT dependent on mass, m cannot cancel out. I.E. we have a mass ( m ) dependence to acceleration and terminal velocity.

Time's almost up ???? But... I just got here !

Not sure I quite understand the experiment, but he may be adding mass to the ping-pong ball by filling it with water. If he then drops it and measures the time to fall, he will have a variable mass but constant air resistance.

There are different types of colour blindness. The light receptors at the back of the eye ( retina ) are deficient to varying degrees in a small group of people and this makes seeing certain colours more difficult as they appear 'washed out'. Try Wiki for a general explanation. You belong on this forum as much as anyone else. There are no 'stupid' questions, and if you want to learn ( and add your input ) this is a good place for it. Welcome; hope you stick around.

Back to your original question as to the difference between the two energies... For a conservative force such as gravity, where the work done is not path dependent, kinetic and potential energies are related by the fact that one type is exchanged for the other. We can assign a potential energy to any height, but as the height is reduced, this potential is exchanged for kinetic energy ( speed )such that the total of the two is conserved.

As if the Chinese believe anything D Trump says... China produces goods for the US; the US produces little for China. China has already taken the sternest position with N Korea that its ever had. Russia is the only security council member to veto the strict warning to N Korea. China approved it !

Can you remove ALL the fields ? I remember something AJB once said... 'In GR geometry is the field' And geometry is space-time.

How is it 'inherently flawed' ? It is done all the time in a democracy. If you don't like the policies of one retailer, you vote with your money and take your business elsewhere. The US is the biggest consumer in the world, and when the US stopped spending in 2008-09, even China' s economy was in trouble.

First off, welcome back, Mississippichem. I hope these guys haven't sent you back into hibernation by pouncing on you so hard, but why not reverse the format... What policies did D Trump promise during the election that appealed to you ? I know its only been a few months but which policies is he on track to deliver ? Are you happy with your vote, or are you questioning it now ? The last one is particularly important, as everyone is entitled to a vote, in order to shape the kind of society they want to live in. ( also very subjective )

It was the Chinese that saved North Korea from the UN forces during the war and set-up the stale-mate that's been in place since 1953. But that was China then, while China now is Communist in name only, and probably more Capitalist than North America. I'm sure KJU is a major embarrassment to them, what with his paranoia, the killing of his relatives who may seek to usurp his power and his general craziness. All the US needs to do is summon the Chinese ambassador and tell him 5 % tariffs will be placed on all goods imported from China unless the KJU problem is resolved. I guarantee KJU will be gone within weeks, and he won't be missed.

I say we collect all our excrement, load it in a rocket and crash it on Mars. At least we'll then be able to grow potatoes there. ( Jason Bourne doesn't lie )

A 'singularity' can be described as where/when events share one or more co-ordinates, and can also be achieved by a co-ordinate transformation. Simpy done by taking an x-y Cartesian grid and rotating the y co-ordinate by 90 deg. Is this what is known as a co-ordinate singularity ? Similarly, as we back up the film towards the big Bang event, if we get to small enough features such that geometry in no longer valid, then there cannot be such a thing as time anymore. and before, after and duration ceases to have meaning.

I don't understand the conundrum... The galactic centre ( yolk ? ) has a certain mass distribution. A certain percentage of the mass is within the sphere of influence of the central BH while it is active, and gets ingested. Mass outside the sphere of influence ( due to gravitational constraints ) does not, so eventually the BH goes dormant as it has very little mass to left to ingest. Stable orbits, being what they are, means things don't change much for bills of yrs. Which means most mature galaxies, with dormant BH cores, have the same distribution of mass between BH and surrounding center ( yolk ? ) Makes sense to me. Or are you going somewhere completely off-base with this ?

Just read a story today that the author of a magazine article was offended by the naming of 'Tomahawk' cruise missiles in the strike on the Syrian airfield. Just imagine how she'll feel when they go in with Chinook, Kiowa, Iroquois and Apache helicopters. Sometimes you just gotta laugh.

Again, it is a MODEL, which, if applied correctly and in the appropriate circumstances, can make valid predictions about the universe we live in. NOT that the universe is necessarily a hologram ( as Strange has pointed out ). Something simple that we are all familiar with is light. Consider the wave model of light, when applied correctly, it makes all sorts of valuable predictions. But when applied incorrectly, such as with the photoelectric effect, it gives predictions which don't jive with observations. The particle model of light does work with the photoelectric effect, but doesn't make valid predictions in cases like diffraction. So what is light, a wave, a particle, both, or neither ? Don't confuse reality with the model used to describe it.

My impression was that Hawking radiation is a frame dependent effect, similar to Unruh radiation. It is apparent to the faraway observer, but disappears for the local frame of the infalling observer, who is in unaccelerated free-fall. However being stationary just outside the event horizon means an accelerated frame, and so there would be radiation ? I'm not convinced myself and will have to do some research.