MigL

If only J Trudeau, of the many faces ( black, brown, two, etc ) would have the integrity to do the same...

The internet is the great equalizer. It gives ignorant people the ability to spread their lack of knowledge to other ignorant people. We try to fight a little battle against the spreading ignorance on this forum.

No MAGA hats in my closet, YJ02. I'm Canadian. Besides hats mess up my hair.

I know I'm often guilty of the same thing, but if INow and Zap on one side, and YJ02 and JC on the other, would pause before re-posting and ask for clarification of a comment made by the other side, instead of assuming and bringing their own biases into play ( yes, we all have them ) this conversation/discussion would be a lot more congenial. I think we all agree that D Trump is bad for the country ( and the rest of the world ), we just have a different perspective on which method/process for removal would do the least damage to the country and its government.

That is simply the equivalence principle. You remember the thought experiment of the elevator, in space, accelerating upward at 1g being indistinguishable from standing on the Earth ( to a local approximation ) ?

Why is it not relevant, Strange ? Sensei implies that stress increases hormones which may result in homosexuality. And that assertion seems plausible, as has been mentioned, causes for homosexuality could be genetic, hormonal ( in the womb ), environmental, or various combinations/degrees of the three. I certainly don't believe it's simply a mental ( preference ) issue, as in some people like 'sweet' and some others like 'savory'. ( It would be nice to see a source for the experiments you mention Sensei ) The fact that the stressor for the rats was overcrowding is the part that is irrelevant to humans ( although jails do seem to 'encourage' homosexual behavior, but that is probably attributed to other reasons ). But as he mentions, stress can be caused by a multitude of factors, and that may be relevant.

No, I mean to say that D Trump needed to demonstrate he can get at least one trade deal done, and make it look like the impeachment isn't a big deal. The Democrats needed to show they can still be part of an effective government, instead of 'just out to get' D Trump. And our ( Canadian ) government needed a 'free trade' deal without losing too much for Quebec dairy and the auto sector, as D Trump had threatened to do. I wonder what Mexico can claim as their win ? ( "It's a win, we did not have to pay for the wall after all" ???? )

Everybody needed a 'win', INow ( especially D Trump ). That's the only reason it got done. We Canadians managed to lose very little, so it can still be spun as a win.

But obviously Yj02 gets his news from some source, so he considers at least one ( or some ) trustworthy. The 'sticking point', INow, is that the ones he trusts are not necessarily the sources you trust ( or I for that matter ). That is the subjective part.

One simple question for you guys, INow and Zap, as Democrat supporters, how did you react when D Kucinich wanted to draw up a list of articles of impeachment against then President B Obama, for things like being born outside the US, allowing people to use bathrooms based on gender identity, the alleged cover up of the Benghazi attack, and not enforcing immigration laws ? Did it leave a bad taste in your mouth ? Did it give you the impression that Republicans were just out to 'get' the President ? Did it negatively impact your opinion of Republicans in general; even more so than previously held opinion ? Did it lead to even greater polarization between Liberals and Conservatives in the US ? Given that this impeachment effort will also go nowhere, is it that big a stretch to be of the opinion that the result will be the same for right leaning voters, and cause further polarization. And if it is seen in the same light, as merely an attempt to discredit a President ( as Republicans tried with B Obama ), is it a bigger stretch to think it might 'sour' some centrist voters on the failed ( spiteful ? ) Democrat attempt such that they vote for D Trump again in 2020 ?

Mordred or Markus may be able to better explain the technicalities, but basically the term is used to differentiate between the property 'gravitational mass' which results in gravitational effects, and the property 'inertial mass' which is responsible for resistance to inertia change. However, the equivalence principle of GR states that the ( local ) gravitational force due to a gravitating body is equivalent to the perceived force due to acceleration ( non inertial FoR ). The field does not need to 'expand' as it is already there, however changes in the field propagate at c just like all other information. Nor does the property of mass dissipate with 'use' or time, as it is due to the configuration of the system. The force ( due to gravitational mass )does fall off as 1/r^(n-1) where n is the number of dimensions expanding into ( so 1/r^2 ).

Are we down to 4 or 5 good candidates yet ?

The difference is that, back in R Nixon's time, the Supreme Court ordered the release of the tapes and R Nixon eventually complied. After that, no-one was defending him anymore. D Trump, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn what the Supreme Court orders him to release. If the stonewalling comes to an end, it may be the end of his Presidency; but if/until that happens, the Impeachment will never make it past the Senate, and it'll be seen as partisanship on both sides. Oh, and he called our Prime Minister 'two-faced', after throwing a hissy-fit and leaving the Summit.. ( black-faced I could understand, but 'two-faced' ? )

Very true. The boundary conditions are the 'physics' that must be applied to the mathematical model ( the diff. equations ) to obtain any kind of sensible solution.

Silly me, CharonY, I forgot the president was a TV reality show star. JC, you know hockey analogies don't work on non-Canadians.

Other sports result in more deaths. Parachute jumping, hang gliding, bungee jumping, etc. … Should they not be banned first ? As for occupations that require risky behaviour, driving probably results in more deaths than many other activities. Should we outlaw other professions that require you to drive ( salesmen, truck drivers, etc. ) ? How about fire-fighters ? Or cops ?

Thanks for the words of encouragement, Mistermack. The colonoscopy itself doesn't worry me; it's the preparation with the two bottles of Magnesium Citrate, the gallon of water, and sitting on the toilet all night. Damn this old age !

Maybe the money stopped coming in, INow. Holy sh*t is right. You could make a TV reality show about American politics.

This was the first year I've ever taken the flu vaccine. I always felt my immune system was strong enough. But I've recently turned 60, so I figured it was time to start. I also recently switched doctors, so I had full testing done, including stool sample. Unfortunately I didn't read the food restrictions before taking the sample, and the test came back 'microscopic traces of blood' in my sample. So now I've got a colonoscopy scheduled for January . But like I said, I'm now 60; It's time.

Reduced infant mortality and curing ( or at least allowing one to keep living with ) some illnesses/diseases allowed people to live longer. Unfortunately immune systems of the elderly are greatly reduced, allowing other illnesses/disease that previously weren't a major issue, to become dominant, and start reducing ( or at least stopping the rise of ) life expectancy. Even nature tends to equilibrium.

And K Harris should seriously reconsider her ambitions. She has dropped double digits since her 'scolding' of J Biden in the debates gave her a major boost.

So, if I understand correctly... The authorities don't have a chance of making murder stick, and he'll be acquitted. So you think that they charged him so he can be acquitted. Either I don't understand your logic, or you think the authorities are trying to look stupid.

Since I keep getting 'dragged' back into this discussion on semantics... Mass ( both inertial and gravitational Studiot ) has a very specific definition in Physics. The definition of 'things' or 'objects', not so much. Unless you have a very clear definition of 'things' or 'objects', no one can reasonably comment on your OP, Short Timer. And as others have pointed out, saying "Can mass be called mass without the object with mass ?" is highly redundant.

If I may clarify my statements... In the earliest moments of the universe, the universe consisted of fields. Fields which have an energy density ( at the time, very high ), and the concept of 'mass'was non-existant at this time.. Any particles 'bubbling' up from these fields, which exceeded the threshold energy to become real ( as opposed to virtual ) would have been massless. It is only after the separation of the electroweak force into EM and Weak, and subsequent inflation ( brought about by the false vacuum state ) that some of the particles, now called fermions, were able to interact with the scalar Higgs field, and gain the property we now call mass. We NOW recognize that these two properties, mass and energy, are like two sides of the same coin, and intimately related

BHs can acquire mass by means other than 'evolution'. We recently witnessed the merger of two stellar sized BHs to yield a larger one. And there are examples of stellar sized BHs swallowing adjacent ( orbiting ) stars. How would you tell the difference after the fact ?