zapatos

Great story! +1

If I am tightly squeezing a can of Coke, and I suddenly open the can to remove the soda from inside, the ensuing void inside will not remain, even though the material all around is solid. Wouldn't the same happen in the center of the earth?

Quite frankly, I am glad that they show us these picture perfect images of physical beauty. I enjoy them. I am also glad that landscape photographers wait around for just the right conditions, and use filters and Photoshop. Same goes for special effects in movies. It doesn't bother me at all that what I am seeing never existed and never will. I am glad that women wear makeup, nice clothes, and go to the gym. If it was up to me, everyone would be beautiful. I also enjoy pleasant odors, sounds, and tastes.

Thank you everyone. I believe I've got it! It helps a lot to have it explained in so many different ways.

So, events don't happen simultaneously because there is no way to measure two events as being simultaneous? And events cannot be measured as being simultaneous simply because different frames measure events differently? Am I correct in stating that the concept of simultaneity is essentially meaningless given the universe we live in? It seems everyone can agree to a duration that is defined by the Big Bang at one end and 'now' at the other. Since the universe is less than 14 billion years old, if there existed two stars that lasted a total of 7 billion years each, can't we say that for at least part of their lives they were 'burning' simultaneously? Were they burning simultaneously, even if we cannot agree on exactly when they were burning simultaneously? When I look at an example like this it seems like we simply cannot agree on simultaneity, not that it doesn't exist. I suspect I am simply looking at what you mean by simultaneous in a non relativistic manner, and perhaps that is what is hindering me from fully understanding.

As I conceded previously, I understand that we may not be able to know that two events are happening simultaneously. But that sounds to me like a problem stemming from our perception of the universe. Just because you and I cannot agree that two events are happening simultaneously does not mean that no two events ever happen simultaneously.

Would you mind explaining this to me a bit more, or point me to some references? I'm unsure what it means when you say that things are only 'approximately' simultaneous. It makes sense to me that you may not be able to point to two events and know that they are happening simultaneously, but it seems that given a fixed duration of time with multiple events happening during the entire duration, some things must be happening simultaneously.

I think that this feeling is correct. There are two things happening right now, at the same time, here and in the Andromeda Galaxy. It seems to me that the problem is determining which two events are happening simultaneously.

I often try to picture things, usually sort of outrageous. I picture 10 forks stuck into the front of a door. Tenedor. Fork.

Just to make sure we are saying the same thing, I don't think I'd use the phrase 'without obstruction'. They get closer to the center of mass without ever passing the surface of the object. As you rightly pointed out earlier, if you travel below the surface, the gravitational field generally lessens, as you now have some of the mass before you, and some behind you, canceling each other out.

I don't know if this is precisely correct (and someone else may with to jump in), but my understanding is it is measured from its center. If the sun suddenly shrunk to the size of a marble, we would not feel any difference in the gravitational pull from the sun. Correct.

If the mass remains the same, the gravity remains the same. They DO attract other masses/light into themselves because of gravity. They did before the collapse and they do after the collapse. The difference is, after the collapse, you can get closer to the center of mass while remaining outside the diameter of an object. Since the gravitational force increases as you approach the center of mass, it eventually becomes strong enough (in the case of a black hole) that if light or mass gets close enough, it becomes trapped. Think of it like this. If you are 1 million miles from earth the gravitational pull is relatively small. As you get closer, it strength of the field increases, until it maxes out at the surface of the earth. But if the surface of the earth was 1000 miles closer to the center of the earth, then when you reached THAT surface the gravitational field would be even stronger. If the surface of the earth got close enough to its center of mass, it would become a black hole, and if you got that close to the center of mass, you would never be able to escape.

From the perspective of the companion, the center of mass of the star is the same as the center of mass of the black hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

Assuming the star lost no mass in its collapse, the gravity field strength as measured by its companions remains the same. From the perspective of a nearby star, the distance to the source of the gravitational field has not changed: it is the center of mass of the now collapsed object, which was also the center of mass of the star. The change in gravitational force is noticed in the distance between what was once the 'surface' of the star, and what is now the 'surface' of the compacted mass. If you remain outside the diameter of the original star, you notice no change in gravity. If you move inside the diameter of the original star, since you are getting closer to the center of mass, you will notice a stronger gravitational field.

You apparently failed to thoroughly read any of the posts in this thread.

Correct. Why would it? The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral document. Nonsense. A logical proof citing the Constitution is acceptable for that version of the Constitution. The logical proof may fail if the premise changes (in this case, the Constitution), but that is the case in ALL logical proofs. Never said it was. It just means it is a legal thing. That is not quite what we are saying though. We are saying "We should be allowed to legally carry guns because the constitution says so". And that is NOT a logical fallacy, because the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does say that. Not at all. The Constitution is a legal document, and in the US, along with interpretations by the Supreme Court and its inferior courts, decides what is Constitutionally legal in this country. In this sense it is not legally fallible. It may be morally, or socially, or monetarily fallible, but then it is not a moral or social or monetary document. If the Bible says it is morally right to stone adulteresses, then for those who use the Bible as their moral guide it is morally right. You can't just say "that doesn't make it right". You have to specify in what way it is not right. Something can be morally right and legally wrong at the same time. To address your edit (I didn't see it when I started this): It would alter my belief that we legally ought to be allowed to have guns. It might not alter my belief that we would be better off with guns.

To Phi's point, maybe the creature evolved a heavy metal content in its teeth and can generate a spark as it spits out the flammable bile.

Not true. It is only a logical fallacy if the person or group is not a legitimate authority. In the case of the SCOTUS, in matters of Constitutional law, what they say goes. If they say it is a Constitutional right to carry guns, then it is a Constitutional right to carry guns.

Yes, I think it would mean the right to carry a gun around. But if we are going to only use these words then we are lacking quite a bit of necessary context. Those words make no mention of who, what, where, when, or how. You cannot simply assume 'at the airport or anywhere else you wish' anymore than you can assume 'only while hunting'. Only using those words will never work. Unless it is specifically mentioned, someone is going to have to use their judgement. The language may not be vague, but the context is.

It is not politically independent in the same way it is not family life independent, or education independent, or sex independent, or social status independent, or any other aspect of your life independent. But it is not essentially political any more than it is essentially family life, or essentially education... Fortunately it is more valid, and that is why we don't teach creationism in school, or exclude Muslims from our country, or ban flag burning, or have access to automatic weapons, or ban abortions, or change all of the above every time the politics changes. Did I make that argument?

Completely agree. This of course doesn't mean that the justices are not independent. If things are done right, the will of the people has nothing to do with the outcome of the SCOTUS.

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you saying the decisions are dependent on the conscience and belief system of the justice? Does it matter, as long as the jurist is independent? Under what circumstances could anyone's decisions on any topic be 'independent'?

Yes, the decision looks like it was made by nine independent justices. As I said before, following your conscience and belief system does not make you dependent on others. The only thing it makes you dependent upon is your own conscience and belief system. It is no surprise that Republican appointees will be more likely to vote like many Republicans do. That is why the Republicans selected them. But once the justice has been confirmed, the party that selected them has no more influence on them than anyone else does. The justice is free let his or her view change over time, and vote on issues according to that modified view, without fear of retribution.

You have an unusual take on the definition of 'independent'.

But you realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, right? I suspect most any right granted in the Constitution can be legally regulated. An obvious example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim your right to Free Speech cannot be regulated. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is wrong? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/17/the-second-amendment-is-all-for-gun-control.html