MigL

No US administration will ever sanction Israel. You guys are doing it again, by being critical of the people you want to win. Everyone, especially Democrats, was critical of J Biden until he had to step down, even though he was hundreds of times better than a D Trump Presidency. Now we attack J Shapiro, and claim there are much better choices for VP pick ? Do you want the 'best' candidate and let D Trump win the election, or are we willing to compromise to keep an idiot like Trump out of the White House ? I'm sure swansont would agree; sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies.

I was doing some reading due to a recent thread on Dark Matter, and came across a 'problem' that Dark Matter may provide an answer to. As I had never heard of this problem, I thought I should investigate, and I'm only just beginning. Hopefully some of you guys have some insights. Apparently super massive Black Holes of the galactic center type have a merging problem. As they approach each other, an effect termed 'dynamic gravitational drag', stops their orbits from further decay, and establishes a stable orbit at about 3 Light Years ( one parsec ). Apparently this is dictated by the math, which I haven't seen yet, and probably won't understand when I do. This makes SMBH mergers impossible; although we know they happen, but maybe Dark Matter has a modifying influence on this D G drag, and the 'modified' math will then allow for mergers. Has anyone else looked into this, or have a clearer understanding of the math and situation ?

pretty well bang on for someone who claims to not be an astronomer either, and the "little ... learned about Dark Matter also comes from magazine articles and the internet". I guess you just stick to the evidence, and don't jump to unsupported conclusions, like a good scientist.

What about the rest of that wall ... 🙂 😄 🤣

Power factor aside, there is no such thing as field 'lines'. The EM field is a vector field with a magnitude and direction at each point. As such, the 'lines' are a simple to understand analogy that's representative of the direction component of the field.

A hard science has large predictive power. If you throw a yellow ball with a certain force, it will go so far. If you mix two chemicals together and add so much heat you will get a specific product. If you perform a calculus operation on some mathematical objects you will get a specific result. If you repeat any of these experiments with a different coloured ball, or in a different lab, or with limits instead of derivatives, you will get the same results. That is the predictive power of the hard sciences. Soft sciences have no such predictive power; at best they can predict a Gaussian response where a majority of the experiments have the same results, with decreasing outlier responses, or, they can prove a correlation but not a causation because it is almost impossible to isolate all other variables. take human response for example. If you whip one person, he might cry. You whip another one, and he might punch you in the face. You whip a third, and he might get turned on, especially if the whipper is wearing a leather catsuit. So ... how exactly does a psychology experiment on human behavior predict anything ? And, what does an experiment that's non repeatable tell you ? ( other than cold fusion is possible with the right catalyst 😄 )

Mechanical compression of a typical gasoline engine is about 10:1. Combustion chamber temperatures for gasoline engines can reach about 2000o. An educated guess would use gas laws to calculate the added increase in pressure due to combustion. ( keep in mind diesel engines have a higher mechanical compression for auto-ignition, and turbo/superchargers add to the mechanical compression )

If you have a line with points on it 1 unit apart, and then expand the separation between the points to 2 units, it has expanded. If you have a balloon with points on it 1 unit apart, and then blow up the balloon such that the points are 2 units apart, it also has expanded. If you have a cubic crystal lattice where atoms are at points on a cube 1 unit apart, and then expand the separation between atoms to 2 units, it also has expanded. In one dimension, 2 dimensions or 3 dimensions, the expansion is observed equivalently from every point. IOW, every point is an equivalent reference, and unfortunately, you don't understand expansion.

This is a science forum, and as such, we are required to support speculative theories with evidence. What evidence do you have that supports this so called theory ? You have a classification system based on a theory that is unsupported, and only valid in your imagination, why would I give you an answer, and to what ? I offered direction to learn some science, such that you may base a classification system on established science. I also asked to what purpose your system is applied, hoping for some clarification and evidence of usability. You have provided none. I'm going to stop wasting my time.

It seems I was wrong about my previous observation. The OP is not a youngster, eager to learn, but rather a very immature person who thinks anyone who disagrees with his ramblings is deserving of a neg rep point. I guess it is less effort than making a valid argument. Tell me, Gioele, what new insights into nature does your classification system reveal ? This is not science ( which is what we try to do here ), and, if an attempt at philosophy, this is the worst kind based on the belief that the workings of the universe can be realized simply by thought in your own mind, with total disregard for observational evidence. If you learned some science you would know that the 'particles' that inhabit your atom environment, are a loosely defined concept until actually observed by an interaction. Prior to that, they are a mathematical construct of varying probability amplitudes, that could extend way outside what you consider their environment. The bonds that you say inhabit the environment of molecules, are actually the property of an energy deficit of atoms that does not allow them the possibility to escape; they are not a 'thing'. There are way too many misconceptions about science to list here. Please heed my previous suggestion to learn some actual science, and stop neg repping people who are trying to help you learn some. If, on the other hand, you'd rather continue in your blissful ignorance, keep neg repping people who try to correct your misunderstandings; I'm sure you won't be missed after you get banned.

What is the purpose, or benefit, of this classification scheme you are trying to devise ? How exactly does it enable us to better understand the world around us; or does it just add another layer of confusion/misdefinitions ?? I get the impression you are fairly young, and this might be a way for you to try to make sense of differing scale effects. I suggest, instead, studying to learn the basics of science, and the understanding will come. In the meanwhile, feel free to ask questions here, and we'll try to make sure the understanding comes to you as quickly as possible.

A lot of 'refugees' are not refugees. They land at our airports, claim refugee status, and have no paperworks. Begs the question ... How did they board the plane without paperwork ?? Also there is no such thing as an economic refugee; all immigrants are seeking a better way of life, but that doesn't make them refugees. An immigrant who seeks a better way of life is required to have a job waiting for him/her that has to be worked at for a period of time, or take college/university courses without a source of income. Or you claim refugee status and the Government puts you and about 300 others in hotel rooms in Niagara Falls, with free health care, dental benefits and welfare benefits. Most of the Indian young men I work with had to wait, on average, two years for the bureaucracy to allow their wives to join them here. Canada has plenty of land area, and little population. We want ( actually, need ) immigrants; why not make it easier for all who wish to come here legally ?

My friend Parth's won't be; he's already landed immigrant status. His brother's might well be, if he can't return to that particular job. Only 'refugees' have an easy time of immigrating to Canada; every one else has to jump through hoops and wait years on the bureaucracy. Almost as effed-up as your system.

Very little in both; D Trump spent most of his time on the golf course. ( or with porn stars/hookers )

An Indian engineer I used to work with, moved out West to Edmonton, last year to work for one of the oil companies. We had become good friends so we still keep in touch. He brought his brother over on a visa, and found him a job in Jasper ( where he has cousins ) to guarantee his application for landed immigrant status. I spoke to my friend Parth last night and he told me his brother's workplace and apartment, along with almost half the town, had been burned down by a wall of flames driven by 100km/hr winds. All evacuees were sent BC way, not further inland Alberta,

Apparently some people are taking the idea of a 'bridge' between the parties, in order to defeat D Trump, seriously. "Haley voters for Harris" plans to continue supporting K Harris' Presidential bid, in order to stop Trump, even though N Haley has told them to stop. ‘Haley Voters for Harris’ vow to fight on after Nikki sends them cease-and-desist letter (msn.com) Maybe in the same way D Trump told the Jan 6 insurrection to stop ...

Maybe you could do an 'expose' on gambling, next.

You would do well to read the whole thread, so that you fully understand other's views, before commenting with references to Nazi Germany, as you also did in the Incel thread. Is that a common theme with amateur psychologists ? Last I checked, an asteroid impact equivalent to 10 000 times the world's nuclear arsenal is not a predator. But I do agree, the sky is full of them. We call them birds. Thanks MSC, you seem to be the only one who got the point of our original discussion. The benefit of society is not necessarily the benefit of the species, and vice versa. Others are merely choosing to attack the examples I provided of 'not necessarily', which in itself indicates some cases fit and some don't. You also seem to have recognized how the ( mistaken ) belief that people were benefitting their society, almost caused the extinction of a group of people ( Jews are not a separate race ) in Germany, 90 years ago. But there are many more such examples.

I could be wrong, but I do believe TheVat mentioned it previously in this thread. You know that eventually the two parties have to work together, they cannot continue to polarize the country such that the whole purpose of government/politicians is to get re-elected, and not actually govern the country. No, Lon would be a terrible choice. Heck, he'd be even older than J Biden ... if he was still alive. Of course I meant Liz Cheney 🙂 . Personally, I don't think an astronaut's 'coolness' factor translates well to politics. And given his 'on the job' experience, I would lean towards Shapiro, of the two that I read are shortlisted. And those two would not make MY shortlist; I believe others are more suitable. But K Harris is competent enough to select a running mate she feels would best complement and strengthen her Presidential bid. After all, she spent most of her formative teenage years in Canada, so I would think she's quite a bit more sensible than most of you Americans 😄 .

If the biggest threat in this coming election is the damage to democracy that a D Trump win could mean, it may be time to consider the 'unity' ticket that has been mentioned previously. I don't see much chance of this coming to pass, because of resistance from both sides, but bringing on board almost sane Republicans, such as L Chaney, would still keep most all Democrat votes, plus steal away a fair number of Republican votes and guarantee a democracy saving win. The country cannot keep going the way it's headed; eventually sane heads must prevail, and work together for the benefit of the country, not their individual parties. "We don't need no civil war." - G 'n R It is now being reported that J Shapiro and M Kelly are shortlisted as VP running mates to K Harris.

In some cases yes. Going back to the wildebeest example, they do encircle their young to try to protect them with the mass of the herd. But the sick and infirm, not so much, and although elephants do try to protect their injured, they instinctively stay away from diseased members of their group. Its a jungle out there; if you've ever seen an animal take down its prey and rip out its intestines while it is still alive, I don't think you could make the argument that nature has a moralistic tendency.

Because it is only accurate for a large percentage of cases, but not all ? All those turtles that hatch on the beach, and race to the water to escape predators have the trait of reproducing in large numbers. Reproduction in smaller numbers has been 'extincted' out of their gene pool. As a matter of fact, if they could run faster, their chances at reproduction would also improve.

Again, weak and strong were not a measure of physical strength, but rather a weakness , or a strength, in a particular trait that confers reproductive advantage. And yes, if you are physically strong enough to survive your predators, you have a chance at reproduction. If you don't survive your predators, you have no chance. That is not a complicated argument. Nor am I advocating for a society without morals; just pointing out that nature works that way. And other than for dinosaurs and dodo birds, evolution has worked out pretty well ( at least till we go extinct ).

Oh, I don't know. I've briefly met Marc Garneau, selected as an astronaut in 1983, and the first Canadian in space. He then served as an MP and cabinet minister in the Trudeau Government. I met him while he was a cabinet MP, and I don't know if his stint in Government had tarnished my opinion of him, but I wasn't impressed.

Strong and weak do not refer to physicality per se, but were in reference to 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' of particular attributes that make a species more suitable to their environment, and more likely to reproduce. They could refer to properties such as appearance, intelligence, or ( at least for humans ) a good sense of humor and ability to listen. Most animals that tend to herd ( have a somewhat social behavior ) protect their young by keeping them in the middle of the herd, but I'm sure you've seen all the videos ( narrated by D Attenborough ) of a youngster getting separated from the herd and falling behind. A lion has no qualms about passing up 'beef' when it can have 'veal'.