MigL

Bullcrap, INow. You have a dislike for the guns that plague your society, and you want to get rid of those guns. Yet you don't want to get rid of, or incarcerate, all the people who use guns, as you'd have to double the number of jails you have. So it is possible to distinguish something from the person doing, or using, it.

This is a common procedure in Black Hole dynamics.. The use of Rindler frame/co-ordinates transforms the infalling observer to a stationary one, where the Event Horizon accelerates outward. See Here Rindler coordinates - Wikipedia

You ask, or make the most inane statements. Realize that in Physics we deal with models. And if the 'reality' of the situation can best be represented bysomething accelerating, or a made-up particle which might not really exist, or any number of other assumptions which are unsupported, we explore them, and see if they lead to consequences we can observe and measure.

We never learn, do we ? 40 years ago people were saying this about homosexuals and who they choose to love. 20 years ago they said it about gay marriage. Now, Intoscience has to say it in defense of his aversion to homosexual ( and other ) sex acts.

Are you sure you're in the right thread ? I believe he explicitly said the acts 'disgust' him(self), not others practicing those acts. At which point you accused him of bigotry. I think that 'special badge' has gone to your head and is clouding your judgement. Maybe the jacket patch ...

I understand what you were attempting Joigus, but those 'on-shell'/'off-shell' descriptors don't really cut it as definitions for me. Neither does Genady's idea that all photons are virtual because they all interact with electrons. To me, a real particle is measurable; a virtual particle is not. By my definition, then, a virtual particle is below the measurable threshold of one quantum of action, while a real particle is above that same threshold.

If I may simplify further ... The classical model of light treats it as a wave or a 'corposcule', but not necessarily a photon. The Quantum Mechanical model introduces the concept of a well defined photon, while QED, being a quantized field theory has, by necessity, mediator particles, virtual photons, for the Electromagnetic and other fields. ( and of course magnetism is an electromagnetic phenomenon ) This does not preclude real photons from the QED model, of course.

Nobody is going to take life advice from anyone who still watches movies on VHS tape. That is not Hi-Def streaming, Blu-ray, or even standard DVD, but 4 generations old !!! Keep up with the times, Rip Van winkle. Back in my younger days I tried picking up lesbian couples in bars/clubs I frequented ( the 'hunt' is often more thrilling than the 'kill' ). These were the 'lipstick' lesbians you might see in a Porn film, not the 'lumberjack shirt', croppped hair type, and needless to say, it never went well because they knew, that if they so chose, they could have had any man in the place. And who made you the bigotry arbitrer ? I have often stated how ridiculous it is when these sorts of labels get thrown around. So what if he doesn't like anal sex and is heterosexual ? Does he have to tell his wife he likes it simply to satisfy your standards for bigotry against homosexuals ? Are you going to put us all in a room where we chant over and over "I like anal sex", and in between pray to God for forgiveness and the strength to change ? Are we then going to do the same with homosexuals, all chanting "I like vaginal sex", and praying to God, because we certainly can't have them remain bigoted ? Actually they already have 'canps' like described above all over the Southern US, that bastion of anti-bigotry; they are camps for conversion therapy.

This would be the effect Dr Lincoln is referring to in the video, better explained by our own Dr Swansont. This is still a classical interpretation and I had thought the photon 'takes time to be absorbed/emitted' with conservation of momentum considerations was a good QM interpretation. I guess it's time to research another interpretation.

We are aware of cases where the speed of light is exceeded in some particular medium. Not the speed of light in vacuum, mind you, but the speed of light in that particular medium. This results in a lovely blue emission called Cerenkov Radiation, but, no causality violations of any kind. I don't imagine your hypotethical intelligent community would note any causality violations either.

My apologies then ...

The literal definition of 'atheist' is "a person who does not believe in the existence of god or any gods", according to Merriam-Webster. Can that person prove that ''fact' with any observation or evidence ? Of course not. So 'atheism is also a 'belief', until Genady, or anyone else, can prove otherwise. ( claims that he was born a non-believer notwithstanding )

What has the new-fangled technology brought about ? I miss the good old days when you went into a bar to talk to real, drunk women ...

Why complicate matters. The current systen has been worked out over a couple of hundred years to be self-consistent.

Religion is a belief. Similarly, Atheism is a belief that there is no religion. Neither has effective proof or evidence, so what exactly is the difference ? The only viable argument is that one is 'more likely' than the other, but, as we are all human, we all have a 'built in ' ( nature ) belief system which can be further influenced by the environment ( nurture ).

Massless phtons at 'rest' are not supported by any realisic model, unless they are non-existent ...

Very much like Exchemist, even after having been around for over 10 years and gained some respect for my scientific opinion, when dealing with the likes of Markus , Mordred, Joigus, Swansont, and others who are no longer active in the Physics forum, I always ake sure to ask questions, not be confrontational and defer to their expertise. It is made easier by the fact that they are always willing to help, and are never condescending

No one seems to want to address the logical inconsistencies of the argument being presented by some. Homosexuals cannot help liking who, and what, they like; they are born that way, and conversion therapy does not work. Heterosexuals like who, and what, they do because of learned behavior, and being reasonong beings, can change their likes and dislikes. Can INow, or Phi, please explain this line of reasoning to me as I do not understand it. One of the above, bolded statements must be false.

Absolutely right, INow and Phi. Heterosexuals should stop disliking same gender sex. And homosexuals should like opposite gender sex and stop being so prejudiced. After all, these are learned behaviors as Phi states above, and can change if we want to. Except, I would have never thought Phi to be a supporter of Conversion Therapy. ( logical inconsistency much ? )

Melodramatic ? Moi ? And again, there is a vast diffeence between a personal dislike, or disgust even, of specific actions ( or sexual activities ), and a dislike of groups of people ( who may or may not engage in those activities ). I can tell the difference.

No, you don't. Apparently the 'new' approach is to have every one else recognize and abide by your 'egocentric' world view. If I dislike, or find an activity distasteful, I don't engage in that activity. If I like, or find an activity 'tasteful', I will engage in it. That seems to apply to most people ( not just me ), heterosexual males and females, as well as homosexual males and females. The only ones 'on the fence' about their likes and dislikes, are bisexuals. Who is anyone else to tell me what I should like or dislike ? Isn't that the problem homosexuals have had until recently ? Maybe 'tolerance' implies everyone has a choice as to what, or who, they like.

Hate to sound like a grumpy old man, but it's too darn cold for a brisk walk in the fresh air. Judging by the rest of your 'rebuttal',I'm surprised you were able to comprehend my post ... Have you gotten a clue yet ?

FYI Luke Air Force base, as well as a statue in Phoenix, are dedicated to Frank Luke Jr. Frank was a daring WW1 ace, who shot down 14 German balloons and 4 aircraft during a short combat stint in France. Because balloon shoot downs were considered suicide missions,he was regarded by E Rickenbacker as "the most daring aviator and greatest fighter pilot of the entire war" The F-22 Rapto that downed the Chinese spy satellite used the call sign 'FRANK'

If you have to use 'maybe' and 'if' in your explanation of the effect, you haven't thought it out too well ...

I thought you were going to complain about my use of the term 'UFO', as that seems to bring out all the wingnuts and conspiracy theorists.