MigL

I would like to add that over the years I've had numerous disagreements with INow ( and Ten oz, Phi for All, and many others ) in the Political ( opinion based ) forum.. Quite a few times you've made me reconsider my position, and a few times, even discard my position, and come around to your point of view. I'd like to think, you equally consider my opinion, and give it due thought. This has come about because we've actually discussed our respective positions and have never outright dismissed each other's opinions. Discussion does some good. Outright dismissal and banning does nothing other than removing that which we consider unpleasant.

It would be a startling coincidence if the Earth was 'captured' at just the right angle to align with the ecliptic plane. All solar system planets orbit in the same plane; the largest deviation is Mercury, at just 7 deg inclination. Most likely because they coalesced from the rotating plane of dust/gas during the solar system formation. Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, was most likely captured, as it is a full 17 deg out of the ecliptic.

William Happer is a world renowned Physicist. He is not some internet shmuck with an ill-founded opinion.. He has worked on optical pumping mechanisms used in atomic clocks ( which Swansont may be familiar with ). If he has an opinion, I'm sure considerable thought has gone into it. I may not agree with it, but I would be an idiot ( according to INow ), or completely blindered ( biased, intolerant of other opinions, prejudiced, insert whichever you want ) if I didn't read it. And while he may be 'guilty by association' ( with D Trump ), that does not automatically make him 'wrong by association'. Similarly Patrick Moore, the author of the link I posted, might not be a paleobiologists or paleoclimatologists, as Studiot noted, but he does have a PhD in ecology. Again, not some internet shmuck, so I will take his opinion under consideration as to minimum levels of CO2 needed by current flora ( not the flora of previous eras, which was vastly different ) and possibly do more research on my own, if I have any doubts. I will not cover my eyes and refuse to even read it. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with their opinions because I'm not invoking their 'authority'. Just the fact that when they form an opinion, considerable thought goes into it. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01861a033#

That was uncalled for. I suggest you step down off that high horse, Strange. This thread has little to do with climate change, and is about levels of CO2 required for plant growth. If I'm mistaken, then why was it split off ??? If you go looking for 'confrontation' as a means to signal your virtue, you always find it ( even when it isn't there )

I was just presenting my opinion as a means of furthering discussion. Not fishing for compliments, INow.

No, it isn't. I just attempted to answer John's question. Apparently the minimum level of CO2 needed for plant growth is approx. 150 ppm. Yet we are trying to control AGW for the benefit of humans. The flora and fauna of this world was much more abundant and diverse when CO2 levels were much higher, as were temperatures. So do you consider us 'enemies of the Earth' ? If we are, then AGW is a good thing, as it will reduce our numbers or even wipe us out. If we are not then reducing AGW is to our benefit, at the expense of the world's ecosystem. So I don't see how his position is conflicted; he is not advocating for higher CO2 levels, just stating facts about plant growth. PS This thread need a new title, as it has little to do with climate change.

So now I have made the almost exact same arguments that Essereio made ( other than the A Hitler comments ). I have not gotten any neg reps, been called racist, or been banned. What is the difference ? Is it possibly that you guys somewhat know me, so I'm tolerated, and given the benefit of the doubt ? Whereas Essereio was prejudged by all, not tolerated, and quickly 'convicted and sentenced' ? Doesn't everybody deserve the benefit of the doubt, their opinions tolerated, and not to be prejudged ? Isn't PREJUDICE and INTOLERANCE exactly what we are trying to eradicate in an unjust society ? I'm not hearing those 'dog whistles' that you mention, Zap.

From the first google result for the search "minimum CO2 levels for plant growth" http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html "He accepts that most of the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions." "Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher."

I don't have a problem with banning Essereio either, JC. Those are the rules of this forum, and I agreed to those rules when I signed up. This is more about the 'discussion' that America ( and some other places ) need to have to resolve this issue, stop the protests which are infecting thousands ( if not millions ) with Covid-19, and move forward as ONE society; not several distinct ( and unequal ) groups. PS I was gonna post the lyrics to Ice T's Cop Killer, Jay Z's 99 Problems, and Snoop Dogg's Gin and Juice. But I get the feeling not too many forum members like rap music either.

I don't follow, Doc. Do you like rap music and the 'gangsta' culture, and disrespect for authority, it promotes ? What about the misogyny, where every woman is a 'bitch' ? What about the fixation that it's all about the money ? But usually I don't even listen to the lyrics; I just dislike ( hate is too strong a word ) rap music ( even when Eminem or Vanilla Ice ( ha ! ) do it. That is what I get out of the above, if I keep an open mind. If my mind is already made up that the writer is racist, then I 'see' it as hate for all black people.

Ahh... So Zap, racism has the same definition as pornography. "I can't define it, but I know what it is when I see it" ( can't remember the totally subjective judge who said that )

As I said to Phi, quote where Essereio states that black Americans are less than human. He made some points about certain groups being loud and obnoxious, and that is certainly true, about blacks, whites, indigenous, etc. One could say the protesters are loud and obnoxious, and they were composed of many different ethnic groups. And he made the point about A Hitler trying to do good... Nowhere does he mention he 'hates' any group based on skin color. That is an assumption you ( and others ) jump to, based on his opinion about loud obnoxious people. Sometimes Dimreepr is loud and obnoxious, but I love the guy ( we kid each other a lot ). In my opinion, divisiveness, as in "you're a bad person"/" No, you are", only leads to more of the same. If, instead, you try to educate a person on what may be offensive/oppressive to a certain group, you try to understand his 'fears', and assure him that his 'fears' of an equitable world are unfounded, then maybe we can get to that equitable world, together. I do believe "trash' refers to religion, not a specific group of people. Please quote the part about Blacks being sub-human. I think you're reading more than is written... He, and many like minded people ( yes there are many in the US; and probably a large number in Canada also ), don't understand that putting certain oppressed groups on equal footing, doesn't take anything away from him. That is the 'education' I received from Esserio. He is afraid of a 'change' in society, that will affect him very little ( if at all ), but will make a world of difference to oppressed people. His banning has resulted in the loss of an opportunity to reassure him of this, and bring another ( or any lurkers who think similarly ) over to 'our' side. Ad the situation remains the same ...

You want to put nearly half the American population in therapy ? Commendable, and sometimes I even think it's justifiable, but it's not gonna fly, Doc . 'Hurt' is apperception of the 'victim', not the 'perpetrator'. I could call my good friend a "N' word in a friendly gesture, but he may not perceive it as such; what I meant has little impact on how he feels. And that is exactly the point. Racism has come to mean that the racist doesn't agree with my point of view on race relations. Please quote me me where Essereio stated any group of humans is less than human, and deserved to be labelled 'racist', per your definition. Sure he made many dubious statements, especially the ones about A Hitler, but I thought all others were discussable, and allowed for changing his mind about at least, some of them. I still maintain that's how we move forward; not by alienating/dividing a large part of the US population.

All of you guys who have made valid points, are the first to assert that certain words have been 'weaponized' by some groups of people. These words have hurtful connotations, like the 'N' word, or calling a gay person a 'cigarette' in the UK. Calling someone a plumber or physicist doesn't stifle discussion; calling them a 'racist' does, exactly because it is meant to 'hurt'. And it furthers the divide between those who consider the other group 'racist', and those who consider the other group 'liberal commie pinkos'. These two groups should be coming together, and, have a meaningful discussion where they recognize that they are both groups of human beings, that have much more in common than differences. That will bring about change, not further polarization. America is already polarized in terms of politics, race relations, global warming, etc. If they don't start coming together soon, they might as well have split into two countries in 1861.

You correctly state that all motion is relative, but then you draw the wrong conclusion. All relative motion of objects with mass is limited to less than c .

If you are of the opinion that a large portion of American society is 'racist', how do you go about changing that ? Certainly not by name calling, and banning their point of view. That solves nothing; you still have a large portion of society who think that way. The only way to move forward is with dialogue, try to understand their position/opinion ( or fears ), and help them see your position/opinion. So, you have to ask yourselves, do you want the 'status quo', or do you think it's time for understanding and change ?

The only solution to this problem is for people to talk to each other, no matter their opinions, so that they are made aware of how others feel. Calling people 'racist' or continuously down-voting their opinions only entrenches their opinions. And banning them removes any opportunity to change their dissenting opinions. And the problem remains ... Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. If only one viewpoint is 'allowed', as all other opinions are 'racist', then there is no discussion. So what then, is the point of this thread ? May as well lock it.

Axions were first predicted over 40 years ago, as a solution to the 'strong CP problem'. Even if the detection of axions pans out, we are not sure Dark Matter can be attributed to them. ( 'hot', newly generated, as opposed to 'cold', pre-existing particles ) I also thought, or vaguely remember seeing mathematical evidence for magnetic monopoles, if axions are included in Maxwell's equations.

I was going to say that a discussion ( which America needs to have ) has to have dissenting views, or there is nothing to discuss. Then essereio made that comment about A Hitler... Chances are, if they erect a statue of G Floyd, it will be torn down in the future, because he was a flawed human being. But that cannot, in any way, excuse the way he was treated and killed by representatives of a state-sanctioned organization. THAT, is what is being discussed.

These 'impossibilities' that we naively label Black Holes fully account for stellar motions within the central region of our galaxy ( and others ). These 'impossibilities' emit copious amounts of radiation from their accretion discs. And there are many pictures on the internet of one of these 'impossibilities' that was imaged last year. Don't confuse definitions, or the model, with reality. GR is extremely accurate, but has a number of failings with regard to BHs.

Black Holes don't have a 'temperature' as we would normally use the word. And temperature is not one of the conserved quantities that survive stellar collapse to manifest in the mathematical construct of the Event Horizon. So even if before collapse a star had a temperature of 10 million degrees K, that information, according to GR, is not conserved like mass, charge and angular momentum are ( Quantum Gravity theory will probably say different ). In the middle 70s, J Bekenstein, working with S Hawking, suggested that BHs cannot violate thermodynamic laws, and therefore must have entropy, and that the entropy is proportional to the surface area of the Event Horizon divided by the Planck area. This has been further refined over the years with a statistical interpretation of microstates. Of course, it follows that anything that has entropy, must have a temperature. And that is where the 'temperature' of a black hole comes from. I assure you Michel, no one has ever stuck a thermometer past the Event Horizon, to take a BH's temperature.

Both option 3 and 4 necessarily include that they consider themselves above the law and there would be no reprisals for their actions ( regardless of motive ). IOW they were too stupid to know right from wrong ( and should have never been cops in the first place ), or, they did know, but just did not care ( and assumed no-one else would care either, about some unemployed black guy, or Indian from a reservation, or foreigner who can't speak English, or someone who 'looks' like a terrorist, or many other who are disproportionally harassed/injured/killed by police.

Two possibilities... Either all four really are that stupid that the didn't realise they were ( actually,already had ) killing a man. Or they considered themselves so above the law, that they felt they could kill a man in broad daylight, and in front of numerous witnesses.

Any BH which is not the result of stellar gravitational collapse can be termed a microBH, even quantum BHs could be formed at energies in the TeV range. as was 'feared' at the LHC. None were observed, as expected, since cosmic rays reach energies of hundreds of TeVs, yet do no damage at all. Micro BHs that are small enough would be vigorous emitters of Hawking radiation, as their 'temperature' would be extremely high. As such they would evaporate rather quickly, and be extremely easy to spot. None have ever been observed, possibly indicating that comparatively large micro BHs did not form in the hot, dense primordial universe as it was too isotropic and homogeneous, while quantum BHs may need much higher energies to form, or may not be possible. One could assume BHs can form at any mass above the Planck mass , however... "All this assumes that the theory of general relativity remains valid at these small distances. If it does not, then other, presently unknown, effects might limit the minimum size of a black hole. Elementary particles are equipped with a quantum-mechanical, intrinsic angular momentum (spin). The correct conservation law for the total (orbital plus spin) angular momentum of matter in curved spacetime requires that spacetime is equipped with torsion. The simplest and most natural theory of gravity with torsion is the Einstein–Cartan theory.[7][8] Torsion modifies the Dirac equation in the presence of the gravitational field and causes fermion particles to be spatially extended. In this case the spatial extension of fermions limits the minimum mass of a black hole to be on the order of 1016 kg, showing that micro black holes may not exist. The energy necessary to produce such a black hole is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the energies available at the Large Hadron Collider, indicating that the LHC cannot produce mini black holes. But if black holes are produced, then the theory of general relativity is proven wrong and does not exist at these small distances. The rules of general relativity would be broken, as is consistent with theories of how matter, space, and time break down around the event horizon of a black hole. This would prove the spatial extensions of the fermion limits to be incorrect as well. The fermion limits assume a minimum mass needed to sustain a black hole, as opposed to the opposite, the minimum mass needed to start a black hole, which in theory is achievable in the LHC under some conditions.[9][10]" From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole As to whether you can have a BH without an event horizon, the Kerr metric describing space-time around a rotating, non-charged symmetric BH, postulates the dissolution of the non-spherical event horizon when certain rotation conditions are met, allowing for a 'naked singularity'. The Kerr metric is an exact solution, but as with the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom metrics, it may not be a physical solution.

BAZINGA !