J.C.MacSwell

Law of gravity...though I'm probably only looking at the "upside" of the changes I'd make...

I guess the assumption would be that it isn't a rigid body.

It can't be described by a single vector. If the body was expanding away from some central point (and say, each point proportionally to the distance from that point) the vector concept can help describe it. Each vector would point in one direction.

Probably a pretty safe bet...

Yes. Based only on the set of assumptions we are wired with it certainly does. But there is no reason to believe that set of assumptions is correct. There is no evidence or requirement for it.

No. I think we count it as part of our imaginations. There is absolutely no evidence that it is there, and there is no requirement for it aside from the way we tend to think.

No one knows.

Yes. Relative to the "tiny experimental uncertainties" referred to by John Cuthbert, all the distances/displacements, velocities, the masses, etc, all have much, much greater uncertainty than that. Do you think otherwise?

Fair enough. Just note that on galactic and greater scales, the (observation based) uncertainties are considerable.

...and untrue of GR for the last 50+ years unless you invoke unproven dark matter ad hoc You or anyone else guessing doesn't change that. No. At that time (as I stated... prior to 1859) it was not. As I stated your statements may seem reasonable... We don't know that they are true.

Both of these statements seem reasonable...but could have been stated just as reasonably about Newtonian gravity at one time. (Say prior to 1859 with Le Verrier's reporting of observations of Mercury's perhelion, though I think even today the the rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching GR would be more than comparable)

as you suspected: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/09/politics/tom-steyer-presidential-campaign/index.html

Still closed...but not an isolated system. Conservation of momentum applies to all systems, but closed systems can be accelerated.

Presumably. It depends on how strictly you define universe.

Wow. Look at those Republicans, 4 or 5 times further from the median than the Dems...in whatever metric that was chosen... ...looks like the Dems leaders can certainly move everybody further left...what a great time to be a Democrat strategist! Try not to trample Bernie in the rush...

Is this a "but Trump is worse"? Let's not condemn Harris in the least because Trump is worse? There are 25 candidates. Almost all are better than Trump in most respects...but as a pack...not so much. I still have some faith in the average Democrat...when the candidates (almost) all run lemming like off the far left cliff...hopefully they vote for one still at the top of it.

The answer is probably yes. There's over 7 billion people in the World after all...there has to be someone out there...

Some of it is, without a doubt, and for good reason (she's playing identity politics)...and some of it is no doubt for bad reason (straight up racism) I like to think the former vastly exceeds the latter...

I have no idea what was intended...but what I think is funny is that it really shouldn't matter...though the way some talk it probably does. Maybe Harris can take a page out of the Warren playbook...get herself a DNA test and go from there...

You literally claimed justifiable discrimination can't exist. An ambiguous statement with regard to whether it can be fair doesn't qualify that claim, regardless of context.

So you believe discrimination is never justified? Hardly a straw man. I'm not making an argument for or against anything. Reread what I wrote more objectively. Nothing I stated was untrue. What's missing, for you, is a clear statement of bias that you would agree with.

Discrimination is discrimination. But that doesn't mean justifiable discrimination can't exist. Discriminating against those who may drop out, permanently or temporarily, to bear children would have the similar statistical justification as discriminating based on advanced age, where a shorter career could be expected. The difference is political, based on what people will accept as fair.

Kind of feel bad for you Americans...or is candidate Castro going overboard? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/castro-says-he-was-glad-to-see-nike-pull-betsy-ross-flag-shoes/ Heres one that also served during times where slavery was legal... It also served during the war that lead to ending slavery in America...so maybe it gets a pass? How about the current flag, unchanged since July 4 1960? Any hint of racism during that time? On topic, does Castro (not the only candidate espousing this view) get a passing grade on this? Or is he shooting himself in the foot...and worse potentially dragging any Democrats that agree with him down with him? (not to mention loading Trumps gun and handing it to him...) Should they not just stick to graciously accepting the Whitehouse in 2021, rather than insisting Trump stays in the game? The Betsy Ross Flag could become the next MAGA hat...hopefully it represents anti-identity politics and not anti-minority or anti immigration...but I would be very surprised, shocked in fact, if the GOP doesn't take advantage of this.

It depends somewhat on the size of the spacecraft and that of the blackhole, which effects the tidal effect between the near and far wall of the spacecraft.

You can't change the centre of mass and energy of an isolated system with respect to it's reference frame...even temporarily. It's as simple as that.