MigL

FAA has already issued no fly orders to US flagged carriers in the area. I suspect the area will be under full flight suspension by tomorrow. Reports of F-35 strike fighters departing al-Dhafra AFB in the UAE not too long ago. Could just be air cover, not necessarily strike missions.

Whether D Trump's actions were an act of war, or even a declaration of war, is academic now. Iran's retaliation puts the US in a state of war with Iran. The president is scheduled to address the nation sometime tonight. I have a feeling Tomahawk cruise missiles will be flying towards Iranian targets before local daybreak. edit All this just to distract for impeachment !

In its simplest interpretation, Angelo, light, or electromagnetic radiation, is a wave. Consider a wave, positive and negative undulations of the Y value along the X axis, a sine wave if you will. The peaks and troughs of this wave are regularly spaced, according to the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Now the separation between objects where the gravitational binding is too weak to overcome 'expansion' is growing; In effect, for largely separated objects, think galaxies and clusters of them, the universe is scaling upwards. Light that was emitted by these distant galaxies, was emitted long ago ( because of the finite speed of light ) and, as a result, the separation between the emitter galaxy ( long ago ) and the receiver ( us, now ) has grown according to this expansion or scaling. This has the effect of 'stretching' along the X axis the distances between peaks and troughs of the light, making the wavelength longer. We call this effect red-shifting, and it is proportional to distance. Please ask about any concepts you don't understand, I, or others, will try to explain to the best of our abilities.

Our 'observable' or 'causal' universe began almost 14 billion years ago as in a hot dense state, and extremely small size. At various times in its early life it consisted of differing states, and evolved, as it cooled, from energetic fields, through radiation and matter as we know it. As it cooled, it 'expanded', meaning the separation between objects, on a scale that isn't overridden by gravity, increased inversely proportional to its temperature drop. When atoms first formed from the earlier plasma, 300,000 years after the BB event, the universe was approx. 1040 times hotter than its current ( CMB ) temperature of 2.7 deg K, so it has expanded, since then, 1040 fold ( simple gas laws ). The universe did not expand into anything, at least not anything that could affect us, as there is no causal connection with anything outside our causal or observable universe ( although during certain eras, the causal universe was different in size, and is getting smaller all the time ). For all intents and purposes, we can consider the observable universe ALL that there is, as anything 'outside' cannot affect us. Ask questions, regarding anything that confuses you. That is the way we all learn.

Or... He's watching the last Rambo movie.

And if you had been asked, could you have provided one ? D Trump doesn't seem to realize that Iranian culture is part of OUR shared human culture.

As for the 'universe as a simulation' question... It is a belief and not based on fact/observation, as it can't be proven or disproven ( and actually makes no difference ). We allow people to have differing beliefs; N D Tyson is entitled to his. As for the recession speeds of distant galaxies ( And whether NASA said A Einstein was wrong ), that is off topic. But if you start a new thread, I and many others, will try to explain to you why the observations are real and predictable. No creator, hard drive, or simulated reality is involved, just science.

Seeing my chance to stir up sh*t... All of you guys arguing against ( and downvoting ) Angelo, have no problem calling any religion nonsense with no proof that it is. And, I believe Angelo has already mentioned this... Why does he need proof/evidence that the 'universe as a simulation' is nonsense, but no-one needs proof/evidence when they make the same assertion about a religious 'creator' ? Science does not have double standards.

Just to be fair, INow… You didn't mention any names either when you made your assertion. You just made the same blanket statement as Raider. Why do you require of others what you fail to provide ? ( not trying to be a di*k, just keeping you honest )

I'm actually trained in Physics and know very little Chemistry, so take this with a grain of salt. Look at the periodic table. Hydrogen has one electron in its outer orbital, the 1S orbital, which needs two to be filled. Carbon has four electrons in its outer orbital, the 2S orbital, which needs eight to be filled. Oxygen has six electrons in its outer orbital, also 2S, and also needs eight. To achieve the lowest energy configuration, all the outer valence orbitals want to be filled. And the only way for this to happen is the Carbon shares two electrons with the two Hydrogens, and shares four electrons with the Oxygen, IOW, a double bond. Now I don't really know how to draw Lewis diagrams ( my last Chem. class was Gr. 13 in 1976/77 ) but I would think, if you doubled the dots between the C::O ( like so ), and got rid of the dots under the C and O, all conditions would be satisfied. However, could be I have no clue, so I defer to Hyper's expertise.

Whew ! I thought we were gonna have to consult Congress before hostilities broke out on this forum. And anyway, D Trump is now claiming that his tweets are enough notification to Congress .

Reality does not change with changing frames of reference.

I'm not so sure it was a bad decision ( but not sure it was a good one either ). Knowing D Trump, it was probably a decision based on ulterior motives, such as distraction from impeachment, wanting to 'stick-it' to Congress, getting NATO to spend more money, or simply one of many bad hair days. However General Soleimani has been acting with impunity through the last two administrations, knowing full well that no one would have the backbone to take him out. He flies into the Baghdad airport a couple of days after orchestrating an attack on the American embassy; pretty bold move. People like Soleimani, and Iran for that matter, keep on pushing, just like A Hitler did in 1939, and either you keep appeasing him and giving the bully your lunch money, or you push back. Whatever his reasons, D Trump has decided to push back.

I don't think that is how G W Bush put it...

I'm not saying it's right or justified, I'm just introducing it for discussion... You know why nobody f*cks with Russia ? Because Russia will be just as brutal, if not more so, in their retaliation to any perceived attacks. They even targeted hospitals in Syria, and they succeeded in putting down ISIS much better than the Americans. I suspect they learned this lesson in WW2, where the Germans were actually afraid of surrendering to them. The US ( and Israel ) have always been urged by their populations to take the 'high road' with surgical strikes instead of mass slaughters, and proportional responses that do little to deter. We are attempting to 'set an example' for how violence should be done. Does that even make sense ? And Europe, of course, for the last century has been all about appeasement, crossing their fingers that everything will work out without having to dirty their hands, while Dick-tators around the world do as they please and oppress people. America for better or worse, currently has a President who can be as big a dick as V Putin; in fact he idolizes him. I'm actually surprised D Trump hasn't already started a war, although I would have thought it would be against Mexico or Canada.

Who would have thought you can do experiments with laundry...

You might not be a citizen of either the US or Iran, Markus. And although currently in Ireland, I'm not sure of your citizenship. However, I'm sure your country has an Armed Forces, and yes, military personnel are usually ordered to kill enemy combatants. I can't speak to D trump's motives for doing this. As other have mentioned, he is not responsible, trustworthy or honest. But to argue that the US was not already in a state of limited war with Iran ( after the many proxy and direct attacks since 1979 ), and that it was only the latest American action which will result in war, is, at best, foolish. It takes two sides to escalate; you can't look at the actions of one side without considering the actions of the other.

The biggest problem here seems to be the lack of common definitions for the terms being used. What is 'electricity' at both ends of a wire ? And I believe that Studiot is aware that although we make certain 'assumptions' with circuit analysis, charge carriers move along a potential gradient. And, of course, a potential gradient implies different voltages along a wire. Without that gradient, charge carriers have no reason to move. To use the water analogy; Water will not flow in a horizontal pipe, but it will flow down an inclined pipe where gravity provides the gradient.

This particular Iranian General's 'assassination' has been in the planning stages since the last administration. ( don't believe Republicans, yes, B Obama had ba*ls ) He had become quite brazen in his activities, flying in to Baghdad as he pleased, to cause trouble with impunity. The opportunity finally presented itself.

Not everything is about your President, guys. Iran has been destabilizing the region for years... yet everyone assumes it is the 'President we love to hate' who is destabilizing the region. Iran has been in a 'proxy' war with the US for years, Using the Hezbollah ( Shia ) political parties in neighboring countries to stir up trouble against Sunni controlled governments and US interests in those countries. Both England and Germany have sided with the US on this act, while Russia and France have condemned it ( China as usual, has been quite non-committal ) Funny how a country like Iran burns off enough natural gas ( byproduct of their oil extraction, called flaring ) to supply a small country, yet, can claim with a straight face, that it needs home-grown nuclear technology for reasons other than warfare.

You can google it. Basically an alkyl group takes the form CnH2n+1 where n is an integer. That means the first and last choices contain an alkyl group. A halide, on the other hand, belongs to the 2nd last column of the periodic table, and is missing an electron from its outer valence shell. Common examples of halides are Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, and Iodine. Only one choice contains a halide. Which do you think it is ?

I was just going by numbers mentioned in the video, Janus. The point I was making was that the lead time you have on a star going supernova is greater for more distant stars. And those are the ones that pose no danger. Any star closer than 50 LY gives very little lead time to get 'out of the way'.

That still leaves over a dozen candidates. And uncle Joe is getting lots of free publicity from Trump/Republican attacks. We will see if that hurts or favors him in the long run.

One of the reasons given in the video was in the case of a nearby supernova event, we would need to get about 50 LY away to survive. The video estimates that this engine could move the Sun ( and planetary system ) 50 LY in a million years. Unfortunately, if a star 40 LY away were to go supernova, we would need to know about it a couple of hundred thousand years ahead of time to make good our 'escape' from the death zone. So it is kind of useless for that reason.

Don't know about, or have any experiences with them. But quite a few of their members, who make their membership known, are AGW opponents. https://principia-scientific.org/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/