MigL

And, we have to start calling some Republicans 'weird', not a*sholes.

No J Shapiro or M Kelly. VP running mate to be T Walz.

This may be 'preaching to the choir', but it is still preaching. This is a discussion forum; what do you wish to discuss ? Or, did you just 'read the room', and decided to make your first post about something that everyone would agree with.

I was not aware of this effect either, until a week or two ago. From what I've read since, it seems it is not the mathematics that predict this problem, rather, it is the computer simulations that result in SMBHs not merging. We do know such mergers happen, so we are missing information that governs these simulations. Something, that overcomes this 'dynamic gravitational drag', to allow reducing separation past the 'final parsec'.

He's been here a while, and we've gotten used to him. Are you recommending an intervention ?

If you substitute 'national' for 'collective' in the above, you essentially end up with B Mussolini's Fascist ideology of the 20s. That, and J F Kennedy banged anything that walked and was female.

What if I told you ... Go peddle this crap elsewhere.

This is not supporting evidence. You're just making guesses on top of other, unsupported guesses. Is that how you think science works ?

It seems even more Republicans have found their back bone ... 'Unprecedented': Launch of 'Republicans for Harris' causes commotion (msn.com) and ... Democrat Ruben Gallego promotes Republican support in his Arizona Senate campaign against Kari Lake (msn.com)

I think we run the risk of confusing the mathematical models of dimensional spaces with physically realizable spaces. Space-time is not physically realizable, as the time axis, for orthogonality reasons, has to be imaginary. Similarly, for the usual notion of spaces, which are simply volumes, boundaries are simply mathematical constructs, as are horizons, or curvature produced topological boundaries. No the t or ct axis has the same extent as the other axes. You're going to have to explain what you mean by that, Studiot. Space-time can be foliated into causal, 'present' surfaces, unique to each observer, so, while space is not timeless, I, as a unique observer can define a foliation, or 3D surface, that is causally connected to my present instant in time, And so can every other observer define their own unique foliation.

You are right. Any of the proposed candidates for VP would mop the floor with J Vance in a debate. His past opinions are in the public domain, and he hasn't 'seen the light', it is just unashamed opportunism. Where you are maybe wrong is that this is still America, and many Americans are superficial. They don't consider a person's policies, or opinions, but rather judge them on their ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. And maaybe that makes some of the best candidates unelectable ? I always thought K Harris was a good fit, but she should have been given more 'exposure' during the last 4 years, to dispel any fears Americans might have had about her gender and skin color. and I admit to being pleasantly surprised at the reaction in the polls; maybe there's hope for America, after all. Lets hope that translates to undecided voters in swing states

A local energy density, in excess of the baseline, which would manifest as a particle, would modify local space-time curvature just like any other energy/stress/momentum does under GR. Essentially what experimental Physicist do. To test at really small scales, we need to poke really hard, with equipment as large as the LHC.

I've come to expect it; and wouldn't have it any other way.

Possibly a lot of the misconceptions can be attributed to mixing up models. GR and QFT treat space-time differently. In QFT, space-time is the stage on which various fields act. In GR, space-time is an active participant, and no background stage is required for the acting. I find it funny when one uses the quantum mechanical considerations of a crystal, to make predictions about the properties of the aether that ( they believe ) permeates space in GR. And I'm with Studiot ( as always ) on this. You can't define space by the matter within it, and then say "there is empty space between matter". How, then, is that 'empty' space between matter defined ? We would do well to stop trying to force reality to be the same as our models ( GR and QFT ). All our models do, is describe small parts and qualities of reality, and only within their range of applicability.

I, and many others, dislike Spam. But if one candidate is a shit sandwich, and the other is Spam on white, I will take the Spam anytime, without question. This was the humor part ( sometimes you don't recognize my lame humor ). All I'm trying to say is, if you don't like Harris/Shapiro, you can vote them out in 4 years; you may not be able to with Trump/Vance. You may "never need to vote again".

In QFT ... yes. There are excitations of the various fields which are perceived as virtual particles, or if above a quantum of energy, as real particles. In QFT, these fields require a background stage to act on. GR, on the other hand, has no background stage; space-time is an active participant. But it seems your OP was awfully large to state something which could be summarized by yourself in one line And ... ???

I certainly hope so. Now is not the time to start questioning our candidates; the Republicans will do that soon enough. We need to stand with them, and you guys had better get every one out to vote. Not just the US, but the whole world, cannot sustain another 4 years ( maybe a whole lot more ) of D Trump.

IIRC, one E8 heterotic string theory was theorized to break down such that gravity was shared between two 'universes'. That would account for 50 % of the unseen mass/energy of our universe.

My concern is that some people are so wedded to an ideology, they won't change their stance even when confronted with evidence that their ideology is faulty. Notice I said people, and resisted the urge to 'label' them, as you did 🙂 .

Observation in this case refers to an interaction. You can pass a single particle through a grating to get a single dot on a transparent film. Then repeat the same experiment on all the capital cities of the world, or even the moon, if you like. When you place all the transparent films on top of each other, you still get a diffraction pattern. The interaction with the screen is an event. That event happens in all frames.

Actually, that's never come up, as a woman will let you know with her actions whether she's interested in company or not, long before she's comfortable enough to let you know her sexual orientation. I do agree with you, labels can be useful when used appropriately. They are not, as CharonY has opined, when they are used superficially, as in J Shapiro is a Jew, so he must favor Israel's methods in Gaza. Or when one applies the unfavorable 'populist' label to the will of the people, and a desire to avoid another disastrous Trump Presidency.

What makes you think interpretations of quantum mechanics, and untestable, elaborate mathematical models that don't describe a specific 'reality', are not speculative and imaginative also ?

your mnemonic is a mouthful, and you have a dark, sick imagination, but I like your post anyway 😄 .

@Phi for All I have never been a fan of labels, and have some issues with identity politics ( as you well know ). People are defined by their actions, not by the labels they give themselves, or are assigned by others. You make quite a few unfounded leaps about J Shapiro's intentions; I'm sure Republicans will gladly use those unfounded innuendos in their attack ads. I'm not sure if you've ever said it, but it has often been repeated by posters on this forum, 'best' is often the ruin of 'good enough', when good enough will win the election, but the best, as in P Buttigieg, might very well lose it.

Yeah. And after you lose the election, and live in a Trump dictatorship, you can always claim "I wasn't populist". Labelling seems to be more important to you than the outcome of the election ... Myself, I would be more than happy to live in a free, just society, whilst being labelled a 'populist'.