MigL

I just checked the Wiki page to make sure. He met with Mao during his visit in Beijing and discussed policy for about an hour during his one week stay. Edit Nixon actually took advantage of the strained relations between China and the USSR at the time. First he normalized relations with the Chinese, and then used that leverage to negotiate arms/missile treaties with the USSR.

Nixon visited China in 1972, and opened diplomatic relations, Overtone. Yes, I'm old enough to actually remember that. ( Actually even older, as Tuesday was my birthday; I'm not liking this old age at all ! )

Are we just enabling him now ? David has no clue what red-shift is, nor what causes it. If he did he wouldn't be asking such non-sensical questions. Is it really that difficult to type it into your browser and go to the Wiki explanation David ? Please ! Everybody's head is really starting to hurt from banging it against the proverbial wall.

@Ten oz No you certainly don't need to discuss all of Waitforufo's questions. But at the time, only Waitforufo, iNow and Phi for All were involved in the discussion. At the time iNow chose the option of addressing one of Waitforufo's questions, while Phi chose instead, to question his conservative motivations. And when I pointed out Phi's less desirable choice, he also threw the conservative label at me. And, as even Phi has pointed out some of those questions are valid, you need to show where others, besides iNow, have addressed those questions.

I have no need to rebut iNow's heavily researched arguments, as I agree with most of them. Nor do I dismiss them. Can you talk about Waitforufo's questions raised in post #398. Maybe try to present mitigating arguments, or dispel his fears ( as INow is doing ). He is, after all, one of the people you profess to care about.

And you got all that from my post Phi ? You yourself have recently said that some of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions and deserve to be addressed or discussed. You don't give him the 'credit' of discussing them; Yet you DEMAND he give credit for your valid points. You choose, instead, to analyze his motivation and mindset ( as well as mine for sticking up for him ). Do you not see how that is different from iNow's more constructive approach ? And Ten oz, I am Canadian. We have funded health care, a heavily subsidized higher educational system, social assistance/welfare, and many other social support programs, all of which I've voted for. Do you as an American ? Yet funnily enough, I'm being branded a Conservative ? You two need to give your heads a shake.

"What is it with conservative mindsets" Phi ? Why do you keep assuming I'm of a conservative mindset ? Why do you feel the need to 'label' me ? I am pro discussion, and iNow and Waitforufo are doing just that. You, on the other hand, demand that people 'give credit' to your valid points. Automatically label people as conservatives if they don't agree with your 'enlightened' viewpoint. And blabber about prizes found in Cracker Jack boxes.

To be fair Phi, quite a few of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions, and iNow did an admirable job of addressing one of them. ( although Waitforufo's comment about blacks, welfare and Democrat voting blocks, in the above post is over the top ) That is called a discussion and is what I thought we were doing. So what's the problem ? Tar's ramblings on the other hand, are a reason I don't participate ( but still read ) this ( and another ) thread. And I've previously stated that reason.

I agree with imatfaal... More sex - Less everything else. But seriously, the fact that its a normal bodily function simply doesn't cut it as an excuse to do it in the alley or up against your neighbour's garage. I don't wanna see anyone sh*t or pi*s at the side of the road either ( unless I'm driving through France or other southern European countries ). Get a room people !

If on the other hand, you decide to continue your studies in Canada, UofT has a very good Aerospace Engineering program. It was one of my choices when I finished Gr13, but I went with Physics instead.

As swansont has already explained ( but you failed to understand ), a distance/recession red-shift is the relocation of known spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. So an absorption or emission line for a specific element that we find in the yellow section of the Sun's spectrum, would be relocated to the red end for a receding star, and the blue end for an approaching star. The same holds true for galaxies and clusters ( unless you think they are made up of something else ). The CMB shift is the moving of the spectrum itself towards the longer wavelengths ( microwave ). This lengthening of the wave's timebase is solely due to expansion, more specifically it is proportional to the expansion factor ( approx. 1100 ). If we use the Sun's plasma as an example ( actually hotter than decoupling temperature ), it emits radiation centered about 600 nm. If we apply a 'stretch' to that radiation of 1000 we get a cooling to 0.0006m or 0.06 cm. And if I recall correctly the upper end of microwaves are at 0.1 cm. So 'back of an envelope' numbers do work out

I beg to differ with you all. The best sex is 'dirty' sex.

I've not heard of any satellites having orbital adjustments/corrections because of 'anomalies'. For known and explainable reasons I have, of course What 'anomalies' are we talking about here ?

Even though we call it the CMB 'temperature', it isn't like a gas temperature which decreases as the cube of the volume increase. It is actually the wavelength of the radiation which makes up the CMB that increases linearly with the same scaling factor as the expansion of the universe. So the scaling factor 1100 is the relevant one for the CMB. Edit Sorry messed that up. It should read " it isn't like a gas temperature that decreases as the volume, or cube of the distance, increase"

It must really bother you, Overtone, that people, who you consider NOT 'specifically good' people, or crazy people, or whining, spoiled and irresponsible ( for the past 40 yrs ) people, or people you consider your intellectual inferiors, have as much say in the government that represents them also, as you do. Do you want a link for the definition of DEMOCRACY ?

The universe does not have 'container walls' nor is it expanding into a vacuum, Carrock. That's why Mordred's analysis works. The CMB is a 'snapshot' of the uniformity of temperatures 300 mil yrs after the Big Bang. The minute variations of that time have developed into the features we see today ( galaxies , clusters, voids, etc. ) The photons that make up that 'snapshot' from 13.4 bil yrs ago have become 'stretched' in proportion with universal expansion, but they are trivially affected by the large scale structures of the present universe.

Don't see how this would work in ALL directions.

An excellent book which details the history and theory of black holes is Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes And Time Warps'. I can't recommend it enough. Its very informative and not math intensive. Incidentally Thorne is a student of J.A. Wheeler, who coined the 'no hair' term.

They can be encoded in any way that can be decoded at the other end as that would convey information. And if that information travelled faster than c it would 'break' causality. A boson that mediates an infinitely long range force like gravity or EM has to, by necessity, be massless. And massless particles always move at c .

I'm really not sure where you get this idea of time and space co-ordinate switching Sorcerer. Time ( and space ) proceed as normal for you as you approach and cross the event horizon of a Black Hole. What does happen, is that the light cone, separating time-like and space-like travel 'tips' over on its side ( towards the BH ). This makes the only possible place you can travel to, the singularity, as that is the only 'place' in your 'future'. As for the Kerr BH, I believe the inner horizon is the one 'modified' by angular momentum, while the outer is accounted for by the mass. And if the inner horizon is enlarged enough, by supplying enough angular momentum to the BH, then both are nullified, leaving a bare 'singularity'. Keep in mind I'm not exactly sure about this as its been a while and I don't feel like doing the 'research' at this time. Maybe one of the other members ( Mordred ? ) can clarify.

I always get those two mixed up also, ( sheepish grin )

In much more layman's terms... Entangled particles share a 'probability distribution'. Once you interact with one to determine its actual state, you also know the state of the other. From that point forward the particles will have separate 'probability distributions', so that subsequent measurements will no longer correlate.

I'm just going from memory here as its been quite a while since I even attempted to understand the Kerr solution... A rotating BH will have two event horizons, one inside the other, just like a charged BH ( Nordstrom solution ). Theoretically it should be possible for a BH to gain enough angular momentum such that the inner horizon moves outside the outer horizon and we are left with a 'naked' singularity. I don't think it could actually be realised though.

You can patent the process used. I don't think you can patent sperm. I'd hate to have a patent infringement case filed against me !

I have an idea elizsa. Why don't you go peddle this crap elsewhere ? ( oh look at that, its an opinion also )