geordief

. Yes it is a lazy description. So what is the cause or group of causes behind this attachment to the existing gun laws in USA? Some justifications are defensible but it is astonishing that the counter arguments can be dismissed in the face of such repellent outcomes. It is probably off topic but perhaps a clear eyed discussion of why this horrible status quo persists might help.

Just got 502 Bad Gateway again.(just a hiccup perhaps.Seems fine otherwise)

No idea.

I just got a "Bad Gateway" ,refreshed and it loaded......

These connected waves ,do they represent the statistically probable locations of the electric and magnetic fields over time?

Being part of any minority (in any sense) will make you stand out as suspicious.. Being wealthy can be a camouflage in its own way (look at how con men will affect wealthy appearance routinely) Speculation as to this person's motives are extremely vital but (of course) the authorities are privy to clues at this time . I see no reason that they should be secretive about what they find when all the facts and deductions are known. My mind boggles at what must have been the task of cornering a man with a machine gun in an enclosed space. (and the mentality which accepts their legitimate sale to the public) .

Are there tests that can be done? (is it a case of not being able to prove a negative?) (I haven't been able to understand Bell's Theorem ;it was too convoluted for me)

You mean you can't detect his views?

Your path up to the podium could be encumbered. It could feel like lugging if it was just awkward. Hope we are not going to fall out over this

It is quite relatively easy to find holes in others' reasoning but much harder ,I believe to find them in your own. That may be a platitude. EDIT: that may be back to front as I just edited my post (so I did find my own mistake) whereas I actually rarely find logical mistakes in others' reasoning :I generally object to what they say and try in vain to work out where they are wrong.

If the large ball is filled with helium it does shoot up,surely.

Scientific questions are multi faceted with an unlimited amount of inputs to a situation whilst logic and maths attempts to clear the scenario of extraneous inputs? For logic to be correct it only needs to be self consistent whilst that is just a necessary requirement for physical/scientific questions

What about the carbon footprint of the rockets that could transport passengers on what are currently long haul flights? My uneducated suspicion is that carbon emissions would be far greater. Would this serve a genuine need? (I get the point it might pay for the trip to Mars) Will the money spent on these enterprises divert from necessary expenditure on Earth?

That was my fault . I answered your post within the text of your own frame (adding format to differentiate authorship) and added a couple of sneaky full stops in the area we are expected to post in. That's because I haven't mastered multi quoting after all these years

..

Is "discontinuity" being used in the mathematical sense of non integrability? "Not smooth" ? (any way to delete frames?)

I came across this recently https://phys.org/news/2017-09-entanglement-inevitable-feature-reality.html#jCp "Entanglement is an inevitable feature of reality" where they seem to be working backwards from classical behaviour to put restrictions on any possible quantum theory that might be possible.. I see no specific mention of spacetime curvature in that article(which does not go into what it says is a very complicated proof in the paper) ..... So not sure if it is relevant to the OP.

I think I am right to say that the causative mechanism between the two phenomena has not yet been uncovered . Rather than ask what it might be ,can I ask what main theories have been discounted? Does all ongoing research into this area require some kind of input from quantum theory or are there any purely classical theories that are also being pursued ?(I hoped I have not mangled the terminology with my use of the term "theories")

Never heard of that. They (Wiki) say it is related to irony .Not a bit like an inverse strawman? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis The word itself reminds me of Apoptosis (cell suicide)

When two protons collide at relativistic speeds and are length contracted how is the bounce ** affected? ** perhaps "bounce" is the wrong word

Suppose an observer in a stationary FoR takes measurements of an object or a group of objects , and another non-stationary observer takes the measurements of the same object or group of objects. Their measurements will differ. Now suppose that both pairs of observers continue to make observations of the objects or group of objects but change their relative speeds so that they are now stationary wrt each other. Will the measurements they now make of the object or group of objects (as they have developed over the intervening time) be identical? Taking into account the twin paradox , this seems unlikely to me as in that scenario the returning twin will view the evolved initial scenario (the parting) differently from the remaining twin (albeit dead) and so the change in measurements is real in that case and not apparent. Does the twin paradox result also apply to the length contraction question so that the length contraction has lasting and irreversible consequences in the way interactions play out after the event and never "return to the status quo"?

Well beyond me to get into but I do find it interesting to click on the"Talk" tab in the Wiki page where one can eavesdrop on participants who presumably do know something of what they are discussing. It can be instructive I feel to listen in to others' disagreements if only to get the lie of the land.

Really? Can you say any more about those modeled universes? Are they entirely theoretical ?(in layman's terminology) Do they bear any relation at all to any physical situation we could ever encounter? It is not a heat death scenario is it?

What ,another gravitational merger?

Answer#1 It is just a measurement we can make. Answer#2 As space is what prevents all things being one undifferentiated object ,so time is what prevents all events from occurring simultaneously. Answer#3 Time can only be understood in terms of space and vice versa. Just my attempt(and what I have heard) ,possibly full of holes. (not sure if "Homework Help " is a good pigeon hole for this question)