zapatos

Not American football. Only one team is on offense at a time and during the entire game one of the two teams is trying very hard to score. There is usually no advantage to sitting back with a focus on caution while you are on offense. That is one of the things that makes American football an exciting game to watch. Of course soccer has its own merits, but the excitement of frequent lead changes is not usually one of them. I did! Well, as much as I could. Being in the US with the smaller fan base there is a limit to how much football is shown on television. I'm not all that thrilled with watching Major League Soccer in the US either. The play, while much better than it was in the past, is simply not up to the standards of what is delivered in Europe and South America. Once you are spoiled with European football it is tough to watch American soccer.

I'm just having a little cross-ocean rivalry fun. While I do find the 'simulations' to be a pathetic part of the game, I'm a great fan of soccer. Going to Catholic school in St. Louis, Missouri (six of the players from the US team that defeated England in the 1950 World Cup were from St. Louis) I was playing soccer by the time I was six and played soccer for about 40 years. I also played rugby though, so I'm not sure what we will call that sport if we start calling American Football 'rugby'.

Yes, it's a lovely part of the game that really highlights their football ability and sportsmanship. I'm sure they devote part of every practice on how to "appear" to be a pussy. And yes, there is nothing more exciting than a 0-0 draw between two teams intent on taking no risks, while players flop around on the ground looking as if they are being electrocuted.

I've always thought of European football as theater. I've seen actors (sorry, 'athletes') get lightly brushed on the arm and react as if they'd been shot by a cannon, squirming on the ground in agony, only to lightly jump to their feet just before the medics arrive...

Interesting. That led me to a web site called www.soccerbilia.co.uk specializing in British football/soccer magazine memorabilia. http://www.soccerbilia.co.uk/acatalog/About-Soccerbilia.html

Agreed. I remember my mother saying she didn't want to switch because that meant none of her recipes would work anymore. Huh?!?! Since we already have something called 'football', what would you have us call it? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/why-we-call-soccer-soccer/372771/

When people get annoyed at those who don't know any better.

For the same reason planets continue to orbit?

A serious crime.

Okay, thank you. That is the part I did not understand. Thank you both for helping me through that.

Okay. So any gravitational impact the distant galaxy had on us prior to crossing over into the unobservable universe would remain indefinitely?

I believe that is possible because we are seeing photons that left the distant galaxy prior to achieving a recession rate greater than c. And if I understand correctly, all photons that left the distant galaxy prior the the recession rate exceeding c will eventually pass us, and at that point that distant galaxy will become invisible to us, never to be heard from again. Which sort of brings me back to the reason I opened this thread, which has to do with the consequences on gravity at > c recession. 1. If photons and the propagation of gravity travel at c, 2. and a recession rate > c means that eventually photons from a distant galaxy will no longer reach us, 3. then would it also be true that at basically the same time photons are longer able to reach us, that the propagation of gravity will no longer be able to 'reach us'?

The purpose of the impossible question was simply a thought question to help me understand the principles of how gravity works. I don't seem to be making myself clear so let me just start with a question. You earlier said that gravity extends to infinity. Does that mean that if our universe simply popped into existence from nothing, that at that moment gravity from our universe had infinite reach? This is not a question about how our universe began, it is a question about the behavior of gravity.

Many years from now if things continue as they are, our supercluster (or whatever we are gravitationally bound to) will be the only thing any future earthling will be capable of detecting. All other large structures will eventually have receded from us, at speeds greater than c, into the unobservable universe. Are you saying that we will forever be under the gravitational influence of all other superclusters, whether in our observable universe or not, and no matter how long we've receded from them at > c? And if we are, can those superclusters really be considered 'unobservable'? I've heard said on this forum that if the sun were to suddenly disappear that the earth would continue to revolve around the spot where the sun previously existed for an additional eight minutes or so, after which there would be no gravity to bind us and we would fly off into space. Looking at that from another perspective, if Earth was out in intergalactic space and a sun sized star suddenly appeared out of nothing, 93 million miles from us, would we be immediately attracted to it, or would it take eight minutes or so before we began to be influenced by its gravity? If it took eight minutes or so to affect us, that tells me that if at the moment it appeared I began to recede from it at greater than c, that its gravitational influence would never affect me. This is what leads me to believe that there is an ever expanding gravitational sphere of influence around any given mass (expanding at the rate of c) and that if we are inside that sphere we can eventually leave the sphere of influence by receding away from the source of gravity at a rate greater than c. I have no idea if what I'm suggesting is correct, I'm just trying to see if I understand correctly. If I do, then that leads me to believe that structures receding from each other at rates > c will eventually leave the gravitational sphere of influence of each other and will begin to recede even faster as Dark Energy continues to act on them without the opposing force of gravity.

But I am receding from galaxy 'x' faster than c, right? For any galaxy we see receding from us faster than c, we are receding from them faster than c. (I am unsure whether or not you are trying to make a distinction between 'receding' and 'moving'.) Presumably there are some galaxies that are beyond our ability to ever communicate with because we are receding from each other at rates faster than c. Are we still in their gravity well?

I am receding from galaxy 'x' at a rate greater than c right now. It is the reach of gravity from galaxy 'x' that I believe I will eventually pass.

But gravity travels at c, no? If I am receding at a rate greater than c won't I eventually outpace the gravity of the galaxy I am receding from and move into an area that the gravity of said galaxy has not yet reached?

Is it safe to assume that since distant galaxies recede from us at a rate greater than c that they eventually leave the gravity well of our galaxy? If so, does this imply that Dark Energy will have a greater impact on recession rates over time as gravity wells are no longer an influence on distant galaxies; that recession rates increase over time and not just over distance?

I want to be careful around using the word 'discriminate'. I find it acceptable to offer a benefit for one type of behavior while not offering the benefit for another type of behavior. For example, giving a tax deduction for a mortgage but not giving a tax deduction for a car loan. I would not call that discrimination as anyone can take advantage of the mortgage tax deduction. I would also not call it discrimination to not give you and your father the same benefits that were given to married couples. What I don't find acceptable (and what is barred under the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution) is to offer a benefit for a type of behavior, while only allowing a specific class of citizens to take advantage of that benefit. In my mind, that is discrimination and should not be allowed. Hence, while it is acceptable to offer benefits to married couples that are not offered to unmarried couples, it is not acceptable to limit who can take advantage of marriage benefits once offered**. **There are of course exceptions, but they must be reasonable exceptions.

I do not know which environment is best for children, but I suppose some research could rank them based on certain parameters and I would not be surprised if one father/one mother appeared at the top of the list. But whatever environment landed on top, that would only be the best environment on average. I've known a number of two-parent families where the children would have been better off in almost any other environment. Hence, while one environment may be the best on average, I don't feel like any good environment for children should be discouraged simply because it is not the best. I feel government is generally obligated to create laws and policies that benefit society, and thus government certainly has the right to give advantages to certain groups or individuals who create healthy environments for children. Unfortunately what is 'best' changes over time, and the ability of government to fairly and impartially judge what is best for society, and how far to go, is suspect.

I didn't realize that. In that respect I agree with you completely. The church gets to make the rules for those who choose to be members of their club.

Is anyone suggesting that everyone is entitled to a marriage sanctioned by the Church? Marriage is not the sole purview of religion.

Many laws are enacted to promote behavior. In the US there are tax benefits given to people who have home mortgages in order to promote home sales and the resultant benefits to construction, manufacturing, etc. Giving tax benefits to married couples encourages marriage and the resultant benefits associated with the nuclear family.

Proper ergonomics for sitting include a back support that follows the curvature of your spine. I don't know if keeping your back 'straight' is a good substitute for an ergonomic chair, or if ergonomic chairs are recommended because people don't keep their backs straight. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/office-ergonomics/art-20046169 http://ergo-plus.com/using-exercise-ball-to-replace-office-chair/