MigL

I put 'stronger' in quotes to mean a candidate that is capable of a dominant win over D Trump, so we can finally be rid of the fear of him running, and possibly winning, again. But you make a valid point, some of their strongest candidates would be women. In K Harris' case, however, I was more impressed with her before becoming VP than during the last 3 years. ( I assume VPs are meant to be mostly MIA, but I remember J Biden being a much more visible as VP during the Obama Presidency ) The Democrats should have used this time to make her a household name, and a contender for the Presidency. Even if J Biden squaks out a win this year, they will need someone in 4 years who is known, trusted, and not a 'scary' woman. Scary is in quotes not because of any attitude I may have, but because a large number of Americans don't seem ready or willing to have a strong woman in the Presidency. ( us Canadians; JC, Peterkin and I, had one 30+ years ago; a Conservative, even )

No one is arguing the fact that J Biden is waaaay better than D Trump. But I do wish the Democrats had a 'stronger' candidate to field.

It would have to be a maser , or a large reflective dish antenna focused on your house ( which you would see ), to specifically target your house. Microwaves and radio waves are not directional nor well focused; your whole neighborhood would be affected. If no one else in the neighborhood is showing similar symptoms, I suggest you contact health care professionals. It might well be something totally different which needs to be addressed right away.

Wow ! You really have it in for banks. What happened ? Did they deny you a loan 😄 ? ( everyone has the option of not using a bank, and living within their means )

Due to lower birth rates and people living longer, there are more and more old people than young. You would deny these people representation in their government based simply on age, not competence ? Might as well simply exterminate them, as they are in the way of an evolving society. Remember, you hope to get to that age too, someday 🙂 . My arguments for age limits are based on the average competence ( if one can define such a thing ) of 70-90 year olds: not on their opinions of how society should evolve, as, I assume, if they are competent they'll have valid opinions.

Should I then, assume that, if I was a far -away observer of accretion disc plasma falling into a Black Hole, I see radiation because I am also in ( far away ) free fall ? Yet, If I'm close to the BH, blasting my rocket to stay a 'supported' distance away, I would detect no radiation as it is beyond a horizon ?

When was the last time a Christian or a Jew got stoned ( not on drugs ) for adultery ? When was the last time a Muslim woman got flogged ( or stoned ) for adultery, or even for being raped ? Sadly it is never the men, even the rapists. ( so much for the rights of women, or even wives ) This is the 21st Century, all other religions realize that a religion based on thousand year old texts cannot be governance or the law. When is Islam going to realize that ?

I like that ...

Yes they do. But such interactions tend to make the accretion disk planar; see Saturn's rings for an example. Further, such interactions would be random, and would produce random radiation. The inspiralling accretion disk produces a very specific radiation pattern, polar jets, of the type associated with orbiting charges. All 'active' Black Holes display such jets; some around early massive galactic center BHs produce jets that outshine the parent galaxy, and are known as Quasars. Since the infalling plasma of the accretion disk is in free fall, why is the radiation apparent/accessible to an outside observer ?

Sure old man. Thursday of what year ? The new advertising model is a definite improvement. You don't have to click any windows closed. However, when I'm reading posts I always think there's a video attachment, and I'm disappointed when it's only an ad.

We had this discussion a few years back, and @Markus Hanke participated in it. At the time, he convincingly stated that an accelerometer attached to a free-falling charged particle shows no acceleration, so there is no reason to radiate. I'm willing to re-open the discussion, perhaps in a split-off thread as it is off-topic here, to address your question, as well as my own ( which is at least, more closely related to the OP ) The accretion disk of a Black Hole strips atoms of their electrons, leaving charged particles spiraling towards the Event Horizon. These charged particles are in free fall, and BHs with accretion disks emit massive amounts of radiation as polar jets. It would seem that observational evidence supports radiation from free falling charges.

I just need my 'fix', String Junky. Doesn't matter where it's from.

The Sun converts 620 million tons of Hydrogen into 606 million tons of Helium each second ( from Wikipedia ). The energy of the bound state of the Helium nucleus is manifested as a mass deficit or binding energy, totaling 14 million tons every second. This 14 million ton mass deficit/binding energy eventually makes its way to the surface, where most of it is radiated into space as energetic radiation, and makes life possible on our planet. Pretty darn amazing for something that is not real and only useful for calculations. Actually the mass of the three quarks that make up nucleons ( protons and neutrons ) is only about 2% of the nucleon's mass. The rest is binding energy of the color interaction. By your logic 98% of the 'mass' of a nucleon is not 'real'. IOW energy is just as 'real' as mass. We don't actually measure mass; we measure weight. Mass is determined from energetic interactions, such as reaction to a field ( Earth's gravity being most obvious ), momentum conservation in collisions, etc. This 14

Boots are a different matter; I have 20 year old cowboy boots that cost $600 Can back then. None of my sneakers or running shoes are over a year old. But while on the subject of comparing/complaining about totally different things ... I have a fully automated espresso machine that only needs water, coffee beans and the push of a button. It cost me $2500 Can two years ago. It is currently not working properly, and needs over $400 Can in repairs. I used a stove top percolator for a bit. I like the aroma when it percolates but hate the wait. So I bought a $150 Can Nespresso machine and use $30 Can for 100 pods from CostCo instead of $15 Can bags of coffee beans. The espresso is fast, just as good, and I can almost get another two machines for the cost of repairing my 'good' one, never mind buying another. Someties 'better' isn't always a better idea. ( I just had to get this story off my chest; it makes me so angry ! )

running shoes are disposable; buy cheap ones. Expensive ones only line the pockets of large corporations that use child labor to manufacture them. And are a status symbol for spoilt rich kids.

OMG ! Et tu, Bufofrog. Reading Capiert's posts actually hurts ... Now you're doing it too ?

There is no such thing. The relationship is between energy and mass. They are different facets of the same thing; one being the ability or potential to do something, the other being the resistance to doing something. Are you maybe under the impression that light is energy? That is another common misconception because we get energy from the Sun as light. Light is siply the vehicle that transfers energy from the Sun to the Earth. Both renergy, and mass, are properties of systems ( and/or matter ), and so light has the property of energy, but it has no mass. However, in special circumstances, its property of energy can be converted, so that energetic ( but massless ) light gives rise to two particles with mass ( but much less energy ). The process can also be reversed so that two massive particles can annihilate to become a photon of light. These processes involve many other properties of systems ( and matter ) such as momentum and charge, which dictate if and how the processes evolve. As Sensei mentioned, the subject gets complicated very quickly; I hope I helped with some of the basics.

"Context of the quote' refers to the rest of the speech embedding the quote. "Times and circumstances when it was made' refers to a time and situation/place. Did you enjoy that ? 😄 ( sorry, couldn't resist )

Quantum foam 'exists' ( ? ) at a scale where space-time becomes chaotic, and virtual particles b( the ones without a defined position or momentum )pop in and out of existence ( for an undefined time ). How would you specify a position relative to it ? You can consider anything a medium, but what is actually 'waving' ?

A person who does not take into account the context of a quote, or the time and circumstances when it was made, is an even more stupid person.

An Electromagnetic Field is a value and direction ( vector ) associated with each point in space. A Medium is a particle at each point in space, that has an oscillation as part of its motion. A Photon is best described as a point ( dimensionless ) quantum particle that is 'smeared out' over a volume with no distinct edge. But in its other model of a wave, an 'exact' value of its energy will make its wavelength infinitely long, so it is in no way related to its size. You may have gathered, by now, that quantum objects don't act the same as macroscopic objects. So, I ask, again, why do you think quantum particles, like photons, would need a medium like macroscopic objects, such as water waves, do ?

They would ask "Why is a medium needed ?". They might also ask about the formatting of your posts ...

One thing I forgot to mention in this post If you did go ahead and repeat Galileo's supposed experiment of dropping two unequal weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, you would find that they both fall at the same rate, and you would measure the acceleration of the two unequal masses at 9.8 m/s/s. Further you would find that the a in Fi=mia is equivalent to GMe/r2, and, upon setting Fi=Fg ( or mia=GMemg/r2 ) that mi and mg are, in fact, equal. This is actually a deep, and surprising, result, as it shows inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass. Even A Einstein pondered why this should be so, and may be what Joigus was referring to here

I'll side with Janus. F=ma simply defines the relationship between two ( or possibly 3 ) variables. Usually force is proportional to acceleration when mass is constant, but the other way F is proportional to m when a is constant, also works.

There is no distinction between push and pull; both are forces. However there are many forces, and F=ma is a generalized force equation expressing what happens to a test mass, m, when a force is applied to it. It is also known as Newton's second law. The other equation F=GMm/r2 is a specific kind of 'force', that expresses what happens to a test mass, m, when exposed to the gravity of another body of mass M. This is also known as Newtonian Gravity, and the model is accurate in most situations, although in some situations involving hi energy/lo separation Gravity is better described by a geometrical space-time ( which is not a force ) model, GR . The two equations can only be set to equal when dealing with the gravitational force of mass M, on test mass m. And in such a case ( as Swansont showed ) we notice that the mass m cancels from both sides. This means the acceleration induced by a body of mass M is independent of the test mass, m. IOW, all test masses, no matter what their m is, accelerate/fall at the same rate when exposed to the same Gravitational Force of object M. In the case of M being the mass of the Earth, we realize that climbing to the top of the leaning Tower of Pisa to drop a bowling ball and a golf ball, and timing their time to fall, is not necessary. They both fall at 9.8 m/s/s. ( disregarding air resistance, of course )