MigL

Exactly. Level means equal gravitational potential. You should be able to use that information to answer your other questions.

Well they made movies about 'grumpy old men', so it must be true. No, purely anecdotal on my part also. And possibly more lonely/depressed than grumpy.

Maybe you can cite a study that shows old cnservatives are more "pissy" than old liberals. They may be more mean, but most old conservatives are rich, with no reason to be miserable or 'pissy'.

J Biden was blamed for taking too long to shoot down the Chinese spy balloon. I wonder if he will be blamd for shooting down the Alaska UFO too quickly. ( yes, UFO, it was a flying object that is unidentified )

That has nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal. All OLD people are grumpy. But that's ok some people seem to like old men 😄 . ( does this lame attempt at humor hurt the sensibilities of gay people ? )

You've considered that human nature is often quite humorous ? and you found that flawed and contrary to your personal values ? Have you also considered MisterMack's and Stringy's one-sided, black and white interpretation of the situation ? MisterMack clearly refuses to see the many aspects of the situation in the Middle East, while Stringy doesn't realize that the Zionist 'book of values' is the same one used by Palestinians, with an appendix added. I'm not offended by much as it seems to be a useless emotion. I am a little disturbed by how serious everyone is these days, and their unwillingness to see the humor in many situations. You do know that there are Palestinians walking about the streets, and living their lives, in Israel without any Zionist giving them grief. I wonder how long an Israeli Jew would last walking about the Gaza strip. And if you don't know, maybe it's time you read up on the subject; get a clue before you get an opinion. I also suggest that political opinions be in a separate thread from one that is supposedly discussing the appropriateness, or lameness, of some attempts at humor.

The questions were rhetorical, meant to underline my point of view. Maybe had I added an emoji or two, and said in a joking manner, you wouldn't be so confrontational ...

You guys all seem to have missed the point ... The funny part is no-one can see, or is willing to consider, the other's point of view. And not just us, but the Israelis and Palestinians also, which is why they can't move forward and find a peaceful solution. Sometimes comedy and humor give us the opportunity to share our viewpoints, and consider others', without the confrontation.

The F-35 is a very good interdictor/strike aircraft, but its networking capabilities give it great situational awareness and make it a good BVR ( beyond visual range ) figter also. Shooting a sidewinder, or any other type of missile, from well below, will destroy the suspended payload, yielding no intelligence. Better to attck it at similar altitude and taget the balloon.

There is plenty of humor in this discussion. It's funny how people are so set in their ways ( ideologies ) that they refuse to even see alternative viewpoints. Monntanman mentioning the 'taking' of land by the Israeli Jews, when it was actually established in the colonially ( British ) mandated lands of Palestine. He mentions the bulldozing and herding into small compounds without mentioning that Arabs and Palestinians are free to live in Israel and can even be members of government. He fails to mention how some of these 'compounds' can elect governments whose sole purpose is the eradication of Israel and how these compounds, having no food or medicine for their people, manage to get their hands on thousands of home-made rockets that are indiscriminately launched into Israeli population centers. TheVat is so concerned about he association of apes with blacks in American racist culture, for which he blasts JohnCuthber that he fails to see the problems Europe has with racism. It's not an American thing when bananas are thrown onto the pitch at most major soccer/football games with black team members. Or Zapatos having a problem using the 'c' word ( TBH so do I ), when it is very common in the UK, and thrown about with careless abandon. Doesn't anyone else see the humor in how easily offended everyone has become ? Why do we, individually, want the whole world to recognze/respect our own individual sensitivities ? Why can a word/idea used by one individual 'hurt', but be perfectly acceptable if used by another ? I may not like MisterMack's political views, but, if he tells me a statement is a joke, I'll consider it as such and try to find the humor in it; there always is.

That joke disparages three groups of people, depending on your viewpoint. It disparages Jewish people, Americans who support Israel's right to exist, and people like MisterMack who believe there is only one side to every story ( maybe he really does ) instead of nuanced viewpoints. When you look at it that way it actually is funny; I myself will often turn a blind eye to some of the things Israel does because I fully support their right to exist in peace. And just like MisterMack sees only the Jewish bulldozing land seizures ( with American support ), people like me see only the homemade rockets fired indiscriminately into Israel from those same bulldozed and seized lands. If it weren't so sad, it would definitely be funny.

The F-22 is the only aircraft in US inventory that is somewhat stable at 60000ft ( other than the unarmed, former SR-71 and U-2 reconnaissance platforms ), the F-15 is right on the edge of its flight envelope. Even the F-22 would need to close at M-1 or better to remain maneuverable. The F-22 carries the M-61 Vulcan cannon, which fires at 6000 rounds/minute, so its drum of 480 rounds would be done in 4.8 seconds ( disregarding wind-up time ), and would have an effective range of a few miles. It is not particularly easy to fly towards a target at approx. 600 mi/hr, shoot off a couple of seconds worth of cannon rounds while heading straight at the target ( it's a fixed cannon, remember ? ), and evade the 200 ft ballon you're flying towards, while only being able to pull 1 or 2 Gs in the rarified air at that altitude. And thse 20mm cannon rounds are explosive. The balloon won't provide enough resistance to detonate them; they'll simply punch 20 mm holes in it. It will take a long time for that balloon to come down; even with 480 20 mm holes in it. And those unexploded cannon shells will still detonate on impacting the ground, or pose a danger to anyone finding them. So the USAF decided to use a $400000 AIM-9X Sidewinder without IR detector, but using semi-active radar guidance from the F-22 radar. Incidentally, Canadian CF-18, or even the future F-35, could not bring it down, even had they tried.

I only mentioned 'non-charged' because it is easier to understand. A charged static BH would similarly have sperical event horizons, but it would have two; an inner and an outer

Why 'move' the signal 260 m when you can move the caravan closer to the house ?

A sphere does maximise volume, concetrating the greatest amount of volume, and therefore mass, into the smallest radius/dimensions. Which is what gravity tends to do. And all static, non-charged, Black Holes are perfectly spherical. IOW, if something is big, and massive, enough, all other factors, like fluidity of material, don't matter;it will be spherical.

That's even more far-fetched; that a baby is born knowing that pink is associated with girls, and blue with boys. Or do you think they gather this information during their formative years by associating colors with the gender of their parents or siblings ?

Depends on what is producing the 'noise'. Electromagnetic radiation can induce 'noise' in nearby structures.

I don't understand this. Children less than 2 years of age are basically a set of eyes. They see the world around them and make judgements about themselves in comparison. ( whatever they don't understand by looking at it, is picked up and chewed on ) The 'world' aroung them consists mostly of the parents ( and possibly siblings ). They are influencing the child's gender identity simply by being in the child's line of sight. It would be interesting to see studies done on baby boys ( possibly artificially inseminated ) into the mother of a lesbian couple. Would the baby boy have issues identifying as male without a 'reference' in his formative years ? ( if there is such a study, I'm sure haronY will reference it ) Clearly you've never worked with a bunch of women before. They can be rather ... 'catty'. ( no offense to cats 😄 )

Please keep in mind that most of us come to SFn for reasoned discussion relating to science. If I was looking for 'titillation' and wives boobs, I would visit PornHub. I don't expect that kind of content here.

That's really interesting. Can you explain in more detail, without re-using the same words over again, and show some mathematical predictions of power output ?

It does. Thank you. Except for this I am of the opinion that we should be talking about it even more. Understanding the reasoning behind other's viewpoints is the path to mutual respect.

The quote from Mirror.Mirror was Capt Kirk : "In every revolution there's one man with a vision" Bearded Spock : "Captain Kirk. I shall consider it" ( sorry, I'm a Star Trek geek )

And I've never said I was disgusted by homosexuals. But I could be disgusted by sodomy, the act, no matter who does it. Or some people may be disgusted by other forms of sex with a same sex partner. Why are you conflating disgust, or hatred, of homosexual people, with disgust of homosexual acts ? If a homosexual man is disgusted by the thought of vaginal sex with a woman, would you consider him a heterophobe ???

hold on a minute, INow ... You previously agreed with others, and yourself stated, that gender identity is a learned trait at a very early age, and probably picked up from parents and siblings who may influence you at a very early age. Yet now you clain that the child has innate gender identity and, what is abusive, is if the parents don't accept the child as they 'are'. How exactly 'are' they without an environmental influence to their gender identity ? Pick a side, and have some logical consistency in your arguments. I realize you're passionate about the subject, but don't let that passion cloud your thinking.

So parents who have a child of a specific biological sex, and then re-enforce the opposing gender identity on that child, should be held criminally responsible for any emotional hardships ( up to including suicide ) suffered by that child throughout its life ? Or should we just give them hormone blockers and sex reassignment surgery, and ignore the root cause ?