MigL

A very interesting question, but I do think you need to provide some 'direction' as to what you are really asking us to answer. I prefer any system that gives me, and any others who may wish it, a considered voice and a choice. If you want to call that democracy, then I'm all for it. But, like all other systems of governance, it does have drawbacks that we have to put up with.

No it isn't correct because the gloves would need to be in an undefined state while in the boxes. But correct enough to illustrate that there is no information transfer, superluminal or otherwise.

What 'black box' are you referring to ? Say I take a pair of gloves, and put one in one sealed box, and the other in another sealed box. I give you one box and a plane ticket to Australia, and the other box to Joigus. Neither of you knows which glove is in your box. When you get to Australia, you open the box, and find a right-handed, or left-handed glove. As soon as you've done that, you immediately know the handedness of the glove in Joigus' box, as they are correlated by pairing. No information transferred, and the only 'black boxes' are the ones that held the gloves. ( this is a thought experiment; buy your own ticket to Australia )

The American system has its own set of specific problems. You did it now, Joigus. You've dipped your feet in the political waters. Soon the undertow will drag you right into the sea of mostly opinions, and few facts.

From John's link "A symmetrical airfoil like the Avistar’s develops lift using only Newton’s Third Law. But a flat-bottom wing like the NexSTAR’s obtains lift using both Newton’s Third Law and Bernoulli’s Theorem. Therefore, for a given wing area, a flat-bottom wing produces more lift at a given airspeed and angle of attack than would a symmetrical wing with the same conditions. This is why all basic trainers utilize a flat-bottom wing. Aerobatic trainers use more symmetrical wings because these airfoils develop the same amount of lift whether inverted or upright. This is good for aerobatic flight, but not usually required in a basic trainer. Semi-symmetrical airfoils have some airfoil shape on the bottom but a lot less than on the top. They use a little Bernoulli and a lot of Newton to develop lift. These airfoils develop more lift than symmetrical ones but a lot less than flat-bottomed airfoils. They also sacrifice some aerobatic performance." It seems to indicate a component produced by Bernoulli, which might be lacking in aerobatic aircraft because of the need to fly upside down. Wings are very complicated, and trade-offs are made to tailor the plane for a specific flight envelope. We won't even consider effects like recirculation, vortex flows, and methods, like camber, of keeping flow as laminar as possible over the wing surface before going to turbulent at high alpha.

There is no information transfer faster than the speed of light. Of any kind. Period.

Sure John, a flat fin at an angle of incidence would work, and probably produce more lift than a classic streamlined 'D' shape ( like a Clark Y ), but I can't imagine it would do any good for your lift/drag ratio, and you would have trouble keeping it in the air as a result. I realize there are many factors which contribute to lift, but I thought we were explaining specifically how Bernoulli makes its contribution. According to Bernoulli, the fluid needs to move faster, creating a localized area of relatively lower pressure, resulting in 'lift'.

Let me give it a try ... Take a square sross-section pipe of a given length. Introduce a fluid ( air ) at one end. In the absence of 'sinks' or 'sources'. we expect the same amount of fluid to come out the other end. If we now constrict the pipe by attaching two 'D' shaped plates to the top and bottom, we still expect the same amount of fluid out the other end. But to pass the same amount of fluid through the constriction, the fluid must move faster ( reduced cross-section ). What can cause the fluid to move faster ? Pressure, of course. It must be higher before the constriction , to cause the fluid to speed up through the constriction where it is lessened, and higher again after the constriction to cause the fluid to slow down. That is Bernoulli in a nutshell. We now employ a trick familiar to aerodynamicists. We move the upper part of the pipe, with the 'D' shaped obstructions, out to infinity, and consider only the lower 'D' shaped obstruction and the streamline above it. The fluid still speeds up going over the obstruction, and as a result, pressure is lessened ( compared to undisturbed fluid far away ). That is how a 'D' shaped surface, such as a wing, sees decreased pressure above, compared to below, and generates lift.

We also have a first-past-the-post Parliamentary system, here in Canada, where about 35 % of the votes will give you a majority government. However, when a government falls in most other such places, an election is called. I don't see why a person, elected only by her party members, gets to govern over a country for 3 years; doesn't seem like democracy, does it ?

She had little to do with governance, Zap. Mostly she was a figurehead; a reminder to the British people of days gone by. It may be hard to believe, but her 'job' was very demanding, as she had to keep up 'appearances' and could not enjoy the simple pleasures of family and friends that most of us take for granted. The rest of her family, including the new king in waiting, seem to be failing miserably at that job. She kept the monarchy going, and, for better or worse, I don't believe it will last with her gone. May she rest in peace.

Your entire premise is wrong. You cannot measure anything in your frame of reference/gravitational potential level that indicates gravitational time dilation. It is only comparison to higher or lower potential that evidences GTD.

So this 'problem' is based on A Einstein's quote, and his quest for a Unified Field Theory ? That, because geometry is used in building one model, GR, it should be used for all physical models ? And the fact that geometry lacks a basic 'consistency' ( for lack of a better word ) means that it cannot be used to build all other models ? Have I got it straight ? Geometry, and all of mathematics, are tools, used for physical model building. There is a vast difference between the physical 'reality' ( whatever that is ) and the model we use to describe it and make predictions. And 'tools' don't require 'consistency/coherence'; I certainly don't expect that from my hammer and saw. Incidentally, A Einstein's search for a Unified Field Theory, was, at best, misguided. Kaluza-Klein had some promise, but that was before anyone had any consideration for the 'strong ( color ) interaction, and the weak interaction.

A rant, with few solutions offered, but kind of funny ( if you don't live there ), and probably spot on. So why are these people not getting voted out of office ? edit : This Jonathan Pie guy is hilarious. Just watched his 'tribute' to Boris Johnson Again, why are thesepeople getting elected ? ( at least the Americans had the common sense to get rid of D Trump, although he doesn't seem to get the hint )

I suspect most of us will stay out, and it has nothing to do with being rude. We come here to discuss, not to be preached to. This is your second go at it, and we still don't have anything worth discussing. Sh*t , or get off the pot ! ( i guess you bring out the 'rude' in us )

Mistermack should realize that, in the West, he is free to spout his dissenting nonsense on any website, newspaper or assembly area he chooses. Meanwhile TheVat would be in serious trouble if he chose to post his 'dissenting' views in Russia. Makes choosing the more credible information, or referendum polling, much easier to anyone who isn't a 'useful idiot'. No sense setting the bar too high ...

JC ( MacSwell, not John Cuthber ) seems to have the Canadian perspective on this. In Canada, government workers have great job security; they simply cannot be fired, no matter their competence, or performance. The employer/employee power dynamic is different at differing times and for different jobs; sometimes it favors one, sometimes the other. Recall that one of the major reasons for the begnning of the end of serfdom in Europe was the death, by the Black Plague, of 1/3 to 1/2 of the workforce, putting the remaining in a more favorable position to demand more for their work.

Sometimes I need a drink when wondering why you make it a point to seriously reply to obvious humor ...

Were you having a few drinks on that balcony, Seth ?

Keep in mnd that the human body is 'adaptive'. Unless you subject it to a stress that it cannot handle, it has no reason to adapt. When I used to work out, the common belief was that, if you put a 6 HP load on a 5 HP machine, you blow the machine. While if you put a 6 HP load on a 5 HP body, you eventually end up with a 6 HP body.

Not necessarily. There are many instances in modern Physics where theories become intractable and produce infinities, or diverge, in certain 'out-of-bounds' applications. Before the 'modification' of re-normalization, Quantum Electrodynamics was producing all sorts of 'close range' infinities. See here Renormalization - Wikipedia Should QED, and its extremely accurate results/predictions, have been discarded, and the search begun for alternate theories/treatments ?

I worked for the Municipality, Parks and Rec Department, back in the late 70s, early 80s, while attending University, because I didn't want to be cooped up indoors in the summer. My last summer, I was in a City truck with two permanent employees, picking up garbage from public parks. After long weekends, when people have cook-outs and BBQs, we would always bring a jerry can of gasoline along, and after emptying the garbage, we would pour some gas into the garbage can, and light it up to burn all the maggots. I didn't eat rice for about 20 years, after that.

Only reason Europeans are suffering is because they got in bed with V Putin and the Russians. Divorce is often painful, but most often, it's for the best. Europe will be OK, eventually. We'll see how Russia fares in the long run.

You don't seem to realize that you've just given an example of a co-ordinate singularity. If you use latitude and longitude as your co-ordinate system, the North Pole and South Pole are singular. You cannot go any further North ( or South ) from those points, yet there is no 'edge', and nothing stops you from going further ( around the globe ). That is the case with the Schwarzschild solution; a co-ordinate singularity ( at the horizon ), but nothing stops you from going further. It is not an 'edge' either.

IIRC, linear polarization confines the EM field along a plane in the direction of travel. Circular polarization has two such linear components, confinment to planes along the direction of travel, but perpendicular and 90o out of phase. I would hate to think my sunglasses can create wormholes ...

Originally a tachyon referred to particles which always travel much faster than light, and cannot 'slow down' to the speed of light. These particles violate causality and travel backwards in time; a very non-physical situation. Recently the term 'tachyonic' has been applied to fields "Although the notion of a tachyonic imaginary mass might seem troubling because there is no classical interpretation of an imaginary mass, the mass is not quantized. Rather, the scalar field is; even for tachyonic quantum fields, the field operators at spacelike separated points still commute (or anticommute), thus preserving causality. Therefore, information still does not propagate faster than light,[8] and solutions grow exponentially, but not superluminally (there is no violation of causality). The "imaginary mass" really means that the system becomes unstable. The zero value field is at a local maximum rather than a local minimum of its potential energy, much like a ball at the top of a hill. A very small impulse (which will always happen due to quantum fluctuations) will lead the field to roll down with exponentially increasing amplitudes toward the local minimum. In this way, tachyon condensation drives a physical system that has reached a local limit and might naively be expected to produce physical tachyons, to an alternative stable state where no physical tachyons exist. Once the tachyonic field reaches the minimum of the potential, its quanta are not tachyons any more but rather are ordinary particles with a positive mass-squared, such as the Higgs boson." From Tachyonic field - Wikipedia IOW, the scalar Higgs field is one such field.