MigL

Again Zap, we all agree that offending anyone should be avoided, and I'm sure everyone here will modify their language to avoid it. But is the comment sexist ? Everyone seems to forget that the purpose of calling someone 'stupid' IS to be offensive. The 'woman' part of the original comment being simply an identifier in the already offensive comment.

So when I say 'stupid woman', INow reads an extra 'for a' in there, while DrP reads an extra 'that' in there. Meaning the offense is based on their mind-set. And that's all very well; offense is in the eye of the beholder. But sexism is applied by a society to specific sexist ( for lack of a better word ) behavior. It is at the societal level, not at the individual level. So while the term may be offensive to some ( I would certainly apologize upon offence to anyone ), it should NOT be labelled sexist. I really don't know how many more times we can go round this argument.

As they 'evaporate', and increase in temperature, they emit more and more energetic particles. These carry more and more mass-energy away at faster and faster rates. Eventually the micro ( by now ) BH, loses enough mass-energy that it can shed its event horizon. At this point it 'explodes' back into normal space-time with a massive gamma ray burst. This scenario, though, involves the 'loss of information', which is a paradox according to QM. This might explain why we've never seen gamma bursts from evaporating primordial BHs, left over from the Big Bang. ( maybe it just doesn't happen in this manner )

A big issue seems to be the reading/understanding of 'extra' information in a sentence. JCM said 'strong woman'. INow reads 'strong FOR A woman' Who is the one with pre-conceived notions or biases ?

Possibly because the display elements in OLEDs are active light -emitting components and can act as sensors. While the display elements in LED/LCD panels are liquid crystal 'shutters' with either LED or fluorescent backlighting. I'll have to look into it.

Damn, Prometheus. I was going to read your short story. But now you've spoiled it by giving away th ending. Thanks Koti.

Thanks guys. Much appreciated and enlightening. My apologies for veering off the track of this thread.

Markus seems to have taken a sabbatical, so maybe Mordred can explain some thing to me... Markus states something which puzzles me... "Note that there is no mention here of acceleration, because SR is more general than just inertial frames; it can also handle accelerated observers just fine, so long as the above three criteria apply." because I always thought ( assumed ? ) that SR wasn't applicable to accelerated frames. So, if I've been wrong all this time, and SR is applicable, then, given the strong equivalence principle, should SR then also be able to handle gravitational, or curved space-time ? This would make the first restriction unneeded. Surely GR is more than SR with the strong equivalence tacked on ?

Personally I think It would be a shame not to take this opportunity ( no deal ) to have another referendum. I think The UK belongs in the EU, if only to keep France/Germany from riding roughshod over the smaller economies of Europe. But that is my opinion; facts on the other hand, differ. T May has stated she intends to proceed with the results of 2 yrs ago. If she isn't following the will of the people, why wasn't she turfed in the no-confidence vote ? ( have a drink and calm down, INow, I think you're doing the testosterone poisoned, angry ass bit yourself )

GR is a mathematical model. Space-time is a geometric construct. Your statement... "Precisely. You can represent it at a basic level as a geometry, but if you want to apply it to reality you need to equip it with certain rules. That demonstrates it is not just some abstract of dimension, a simple set of directions, because it reacts to different situations." No, the model, and associated geometric constructs 'react' to differing situations. We don't know if 'reality' does Does a photon of light change depending on whether you use a wave model, or a particle model, to describe it ?

I really don't care about your flat-earth beliefs, as they don't affect what you've stated so far. However "The uniformity of space-time is a postulate of relativity" Is bothering me. What exactly do you mean by 'uniformity' ? As Studiot has pointed out, "isotropy and homogeneity" are more often used to describe space-time. If we reduce space-time to two dimensions, we can characterize it by a flat sheet of graph paper. Adding mass/energy to this space-time curves it 'inwards' towards the mass/energy. We can visualize this as the lines on the graph paper getting closer together, or narrower, approaching the mass/energy. ( this is of course, much harder to visualize in 3 dimensions, and impossible in 4D ) It is easy to see, that instead of basing GR on the distance between events, the space-time interval, one could just as easily base it on the 'density' of the co-ordinate lines. ( Is that what you mean by density ? ) I have no idea how difficult that would be, or what kind of co-ordinates one could use ( Other than Cartesian ), but space-time still remains a co-ordinate system. Certainly not a 'fabric' or aether.

Correct on both counts. Increasing mass/energy of the BH increases surface area of the EH, and the 'temperature' decreases. This is strictly from entropy consideration. Virtual particles exist on 'borrowed' energy, once their time is up, the energy has to be repaid. The universe is a strict lender, if it can't get its energy back from the virtual particles anymore, it takes it from the BH responsible.

The 'lack of social skills' I certainly agree with. Us 'sciency' types have always been 'nerds' or 'geeks'. My niece who studied graphic design and dance, used to call me and my brother, who also studied Physics, 'geeks', but in a loving way. She used to say "If I give you some wires, can you build me a computer ?"

Yes, I'm still following this... Of the two options you presented, INow... "We should focus on getting McConnell to allow a vote in the Republican controlled Senate on any of the bills the Democratic controlled House has already passed instead of focusing on getting Democrats to capitulate." If one doesn't work out ( for whatever reason ), are you prepared to go with the second ? Or is there a third option ( like a shutdown till the next election )

Exactly. Attaching other meanings to the word 'woman' is because of pre-conceived notions; and THAT is sexist. ( I have made this point previously ) But, yes, INow, it would have been better had J Corbyn not used the word 'woman' in that epithet. It would have saved us 20 pages of 'back and forth', but getting nowhere.

If there was a 'center' to the universe, as you suggest, we would see a spherical area, devoid of matter, surrounded by another sphere of matter ( galaxies and stars ) that have been moving away from that center for almost 14 Bill yrs. We see nothing of the sort. Radiation pressure is greatest where it is emitted. By stars in all the galaxies. Yet galaxies aren't flying apart, some are even coming together.The greatest expansion is in the voids between galactic clusters, where radiation pressure is negligible. Your suggestions aren't based on evidence, and so, are non-starters.

Exactly. Simple systems at the quantum level don't seem to have a preferred time direction, and are reversible. Some are even required to be ( think of virtual particles ). Statistical systems, however, quickly gain an 'arrow' of time.

OK, I didn't mis-understand, and you haven't clarified anything. You are saying there is a center to the universe, and it exploded outward. I guess we'll just throw all observational evidence out the window. Space is energy waves ? Water is what waves in a pond to transfer energy. What waves in space to transfer energy ? The expansion is only evident in places which are far from radiating stars/matter. IE not gravitationally bound. So how can radiation pressure ( energy waves ? ) be responsible for expansion ? Current understanding has none of these problems.

If you are serious, perhaps you'll post links to these genetic studies which prove genetic/racial based intelligence ( not IQ, as that is demonstrably false ). But I have to wonder what are your metrics/criteria for intelligence ? We may be able to isolate the 'intelligence' gene, splice into rats, and have them navigate the maze a lot faster. ( sorry, sarcastic comment )

"Ad hominem' approach and derailing the thread Ten oz ? INow brought it up, if you'd care to re-read the posts ( or read them at all ). Also, there has been You, I, JCM, INow and Rangerx involved in this discussion for the last several pages. ( with Airbrush and Raider popping in occasionally ) For INow to now claim that he said 'posters' and not JCM and MigL, is misleading ( to put it mildly ) Which other 'posters' is he referring to ? If you, INow and Rangerx don't appreciate alternative viewpoints, and the exploration of ways out of this impasse, maybe you should take this to PM, as it certainly isn't a DISCUSSION forum. Good luck to you, and your idiot President. I hope not too many people suffer, but it has been said 'people get the government they deserve". I'm out of this discussion. ( at least until D Trump wants us Canadians to pay for a Northern wall )

Hopefully I'm not inundated with neg points also, but... If his opinions are based on experimental data, then, should we not be attacking his experimental methodology ( which may have produced dubious results ), rather than the scientist ? If we call him a racist, are the scientist who made the 'cold fusion' claim liars ? Or were they led astray by a bad experiment ?

This is a 'crude' explanation of the mechanism, but it is easy to understand, and so, often used. I would imagine the virtual particle 'flux' is related to the surface area of the event horizon. Increase the EH surface area and you increase the virtual particles involved in the mechanism. However, the EH surface area is also a measure of the BH's entropy, which implies it has a temperature. Increasing the EH surface area decreases the temperature, so the peak of the black body spectrum of the emitted radiation is at a lower temperature. For stellar size ( and above ) the emitted radiation is at very low temperatures ( so low in fact, that the 2.7 deg of the CMB increases the BH's mass faster than Hawking radiation decreases it ) is very long wavelength/low energy. So increasing surface area increases the amount of radiation, but it is of lower energy and so, carries away much less mass/energy from the BH. It is only BHs that have already mostly evaporated, or may be left over from the Big Bang, which produce copious amounts of gamma radiation ( Star Trek's Romulan 'bird if prey' starships use a micro BH as their power source ); just before shedding their EH and exploding back into 'normal' space-time.

Your reply is in no way a rebuttal of what I posted Ten oz, so why quote it. I guess you are happy with the situation and will wait D Trump out. You'll show him. Good luck with that.

"You both seem hung up on ensuring blame for the currently situation be evenly spread" Well, I guess Ten oz wants to play too, INow.

Your post... "Yet that’s precisely what’s happening here when posters keep saying Democrats are the ones responsible" your turn. edit: And if Ten oz and others wanna play this game too, I can quote them also.