MigL

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

Presenting ( and using ) incomplete evidence is no way to win an argument Confusi. That video you posted ( and drew wrong conclusions from ) shows an early model X-15 research plane, built by the former North American Aviation,; a ROCKET plane ( not jet ) designed to fly at hypersonic speeds for research into re-entry and aerodynamic heating. This 'plane' had extremely short, stubby and thick wings ( early version of lifting body concepts ), and had no chance of taking off on its own power. It had to be carried aloft under the wing of a B-52, and 'dropped' before igniting the rocket. This usually happened at fairly low altitude ( less than 30000 ft ) as a B-52's service ceiling is limited to about 36000 ft anyway. It would then climb, on rocket power, to a couple of hundred thousand ft, where its fuel would be spent, and it would begin a guided re-entry. Later models flown by NASA had two jettisonable fuel tanks for increased flight time. Unfortunately in the late 50s there were no head-up-displays to project information on the windscreen, so unless that view of the horizon includes a view of the instrument cluster, we have no idea at what altitude it is being filmed. To simply ASSUME that it is being filmed at max attainable altitude ( about 300000 ft ), instead of where it spends most of its time, either climbing under power, or descending in free fall/glide, as you do with your "Look at that flat horizon" comments is flat wrong ( see what I did there ? ).

That's an unusual way of expressing it, puppypower ( no, I didn't neg you ). You essentially said E of a photon is proportional to frequency/inversely proportional to wavelength, and not related at all to c ( because c is fixed or 'firmly planted' ). I don't see a problem with that, so I'm restoring your rep.

Please note, Sorcerer, that the event horizon doesn't rotate as it is a mathematical construct. The Penrose process ( didn't know it was due to Penrose ) is actually a process for extracting energy from a rotating BH.

Galaxies don't really 'grow'. Their mass is pretty constant as intergalactic space is very empty. Their present mass after 13.7 bill yrs is the result of gravitational accumulation of hydrogen/helium about quantum fluctuations in the primordial particle soup after the inflationary period ( yes, it was that homogenous ). Over the 13.7 bill yrs the hydrogen/helium has accumulated into stars, which have created heavier element dust, and so the number of stars in the galactic system may grow. Over that same period of time, at the center of the accumulation, the first giant ble stars formed, went supernova and created black holes. The 'shock waves' in the gas also spurred other star creation further out, and so on, and so on. Because of the high densities at the center of the accumulation, some of the resultant black holes would expand/merge over time creating the large central black hole. Once regular orbits had been established about this central gravitating mass, it would cease to be active and become dormant. This is the presnt day situation.

Dormant BHs don't usually change much as they have a steady but very small influx of mass. Active BHs are sometimes known as Quasars. They have a massive influx of mass, but a large portion of this influx is converted to energy as polar jets of radiation produced by the energetically rotating accretion disc. These active BHs can grow in size to millions of solar masses, and are present in the centers of galaxies, where the density is high enough to feed their voracious appetite.

Yes, please do. I'm at the point where I could use some 'reverse aging' ( eyesight and knees are shot ) Hey Jimmy, is that in reference to "Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead' ?

You cannot get rich off inanimate objects as 'rich' is relative. That top 1% got rich off of the bottom 99%. Take away the bottom 99% and you eliminate the source of the top's wealth. ( you can't have one without the other )

I find it hard not to be insulting of your intelligence. Do you think Photoshop has always been around ? There are hi altitude photographs and film taken from spy planes such as the U-2 and SR-71 from the late 50s/early 60s which SHOW a rotating spherical Earth. But I suppose you think Photoshop ran on vacuum tube mainframes in those days. Get a clue, then, get an opinion.

Happy New Year ! (shhhh... my head hurts)

"No one has convinced you" ???? "Is there no evidence" ???? Do you really need to be convinced in this day and age ? There are pictures and videos that SHOW a spinning spherical Earth, for frick's sake ! I find it hard to believe that you use a computer ( and can presumably feed and dress yourself ) yet need to be 'convinced' of these basic facts.

Maybe 'equivalent' wasn't the right choice of wording. The interaction/experiment/observatioin collapses the wave function. The wave function is common to both entangled particles. Collapsing it in one 'place' collapses it everywhere, including the second particle. The fact that we haven't formally 'observed' the state of the second particle doesn't make it any less true.

Assuming things worked as you say and the iron ball experienced a tangential force from the switching, alternating electric or magnetic fields such that attraction ALWAYS prevailed. And assuming the switching alternating fields represented a massive body ( like the Earth ), what exactly is switching/alternating on the earth to produce gravity? And we can measure the gravitational attraction of a small iron ball. Are there switching/alternating fields originating from the iron ball as well ? Because that makes your model a lot more complex. And don't forget that the separation of the fields relative to the size of the ball will have varying effects, how does your gravitational model take this in consideration ? How is the field switching frequency accounted for ? That also affects how quickly the iron ball reaches the 'prevailing' attractive state. Instead of wasting your time thinking about how all these conflicting effects can model gravity, you should instead consider how effectively curved space-time does it. The math defining the model may be complex, but the theory is essentially simple. ( unless you're considering this as a thought experiment to hone your thinking and math skills, which isn't useless at all )

So we have two entangled particles. We interact with particle 1 to determine its spin, yet you say it makes no sense to talk about when the spin of particle 2 becomes determinate until we actually measure it. Even though we know what it will be determined to be when we do measure. I don't want to speak for Swansont and Strange, but we seem to be in agreement that interacting with particle 1 is equivalent to interacting with particle 2, simply because that IS entanglement. P.S. Don't get angry, make a better argument !

I would agree, mental health issues are most likely a large contributor. Here we are, a few (supposedly ) sane people, trying to understand why a person who has a ( temporary ? ) bout of insanity, does what he does.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis that created all the Hydrogen and most of present day Helium, took place within minutes of the BB event, Airbrush. But at any time after the inflationary period, the mass energy of the Universe would have been incredibly smooth, such that even today, after 13.7 Bil yrs, the CMB is smooth to one part in ten thousand. It would have taken time for stars and galaxies to form. There would not have been a gravitational attractor strong enough to 'cause' an immediate Black Hole.

Take a coin and split it down the middle such that one half is the 'head' part and the other half, the 'tail' part. Place both halves in envelopes such that you don't know which went into which envelope. Can you say anything about the state of the half in either envelope, Eise ? Are their states not indeterminate ? Now move one envelope a great distance from the other ( M-31 in Andromeda if you so desire ). Now I perform an 'experiment' by opening the local envelope, and find the half coin to be in one particular state, 'heads' or 'tails'. I then know the state of the other non-local half, as it is the opposite of the local state. This is fully repeatable and implies no FTL communication. And I realize this is a simplification of entanglement. but it is an example of t a correlation that doesn't force you to choose between pre-determined variables and communication.

I say we give him the NOOBel prize !

My mistake Ten oz, apparently age has very little correlation to suicide rates. I had always assumed that it was younger people who commit suicide. There does seem to be a wide disparity between genders in the suicide rate though ( according to the CDC ), and although females think about suicide more often, males actually carry through at 4 times the rate.

Well Ten oz, you're the one who posted the chart. For you to then argue that observations about 'your' chart are invalid because it presents state-wide statistics which are at odds with those state's city statistics, begs the question; What was the purpose of posting it in the first place ? iNow's latest post attempts a more balanced/nuanced interpretation. I don't have time to research it, but what about the age of suicides ? Is it a predominantly 'young persons' affliction ? It seems reflected in their music genre of choice; Since the middle 90s white American teenagers started listening to music full of 'teenage angst'. I don't really know why as teens and young adults have it better than they've ever had ( and have the lowest levels of political interest ). If I have time I'll look for some age related stats this evening.

Easy, Ten oz. ( I did say I wasn't serious ) But you'll notice the rate does start deviating from the norm, with the curves starting around Oregon/Oklahoma on the hi suicide/ lo pop. density end, and California/Connecticut on the low suicide/hi pop. density end. And yes, that is the first thing that struck me about the chart. ( making it immediately evident )

Immediately evident is an 'inverse' correlation with population density. Maybe you guys would see it also if you didn't have an axe to grind with political ideologies. But seriously, do you really think politics 'important' enough to warrant suicide ? ( also, please note I say correlation ) Loneliness, or feeling isolated, perhaps ? Maybe we've become more of a social animal than we thought. Or maybe its just the bad TV reception in remote areas.

At the risk of sounding religious... I want to wish everyone and their families a very merry Christmas. May the joy and good will of the season be with us all year round.

Whether the models make accurate predictions can be questioned, and you're right, the variables affecting climate change are not fully understood ( complicated interdependencies ). What CANNOT be questioned, and indeed can be verified in a laboratory experiment, Is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 levels ARE increasing in the atmosphere. The conclusions you draw from that are up to you.

What I find exceptionally amazing, is a person using an advanced piece of equipment like a personal computer to post this nonsense. How far removed is the average person's general knowledge from the technology we use on a day to day basis ? Civilization is doomed !