MigL

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.

Where have I, or JCM ever blamed or assigned fault to Democrats. We are Canadian. We expect our government to work. Maybe Americans have different expectations, and expect their government to fight their ideological battles for them. You guys don't seem to read posts by others ( I don't even know what Rangerx is reading ), but you keep repeating the same things over again. And nothing gets resolved. If you're happy with that, no government, and 800000 of your countrymen going without pay, then, great. But if you think there's a problem that needs resolving, then you should consider all options. ( cause you know D Trump won't solve anything )

The folly of applying a fictional science to fictional literature...

So are you saying that because one parent won't feed the kids, the other shouldn't either, as that would be 'giving in' ? In my opinion ( for what its worth ) parents, and governments, shouldn't be about assigning blame. Rather, taking care of those they are responsible for. Am I being naïve ?

Bad analogy INow. How about a couple with kids, getting divorced, and using custody as a weapon against each other ( even if one of them started it, and should get all the blame ) The very children they should be taking care of, are the ones suffering the most. At least, that's how I see it. But I'm not American.

Possibly. But not if there was any question as to who he was referring to.

I wonder, if you were one of the 800,000 who hasn't got paid in a month, would you still be so resolute in your opposition to D Trump ? I fail to see why Congress can't get the message out that they would be the ones helping people, not simply giving in. People that D Trump isn't willing to help, doesn't give a sh*t about and,is using as pawns to satisfy his ego.

Personally, INow, I wouldn't care if he called her a 'stupid bi*ch'. The term was MEANT to be offensive, and it was. I have a problem with calling it sexist, because it can be 'weaponized' by some unscrupulous people, who then use the term to label people who disagree with them, and who may not necessarily be sexist. It has happened with the 'racist' and 'homophobe' labels. Even on this forum where we all expect more reasoned thoughts and discussion.

That's a pretty long stretch, Raider. As far as I'm concerned, D Trump is totally responsible for the wall mess ( and many others ). Not the Democrats, nor most Republicans. However, both Democrats, and most Republicans have it in their power to help 800,000 people affected by the Government shutdown, 600,000 DACA immigrants and another 300,000 ( not my numbers, I'm assuming they're correct ) affected by the TPS extension. Instead of playing D Trump's game, why don't the Democrats release a statement saying... " We are going to do what governments are supposed to do. Help people. We, and some of our fellow Republicans are going to give in to that idiot's demands for the good of the country. We will not hold the American people hostage because of ideology or ego ( in D Trump's case ) " But that's just an opinion as I'm not one of the people affected by the government shutdown, or who could be helped by this deal. ( just wondering if anyone on this forum hasn't received any pay for the last month )

Saying a person 'j*wed you out of a quarter' is associating a trait with a religion/culture. It is racist because it unjustly associates that trait with all people of that religion/culture. That we both agree on. Calling T May a '****** woman' is associating the trait of being a woman, with all women. Certainly not the same thing. ( I can go into more detail regarding racism, or women, if you wish )

Soooo... Are we getting T-shirts ?

No, it was not used correctly, Zap. The person you were referring to, was not Jewish. ( that makes a huge difference ) In this case T May IS a woman.

So, who, in the US government, is considering the well being of those 800,000 people ? Is everyone going to join D Trump in the 'mud' ? Or is someone going to take the 'high ground' ?

I'm not playing at all ( and if you think that's stupid, it is your right ) In all the above quotes, I've never questioned whether the comment was offensive. I simply don't have the justification to claim it was SEXIST. Apparently, you being NOT stupid, have clear justification. How about presenting it to the rest of us, and not simply your interpretation ????

I'm glad you think I made a humorous comment. I assure you it was meant to be serious. Ten oz has constantly repeated that if someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is. I can agree with that. But does that make it sexist ???? You may have been offended by my treatment of your "suggestions are worthy of making fun of and thus not to be taken seriously". And that is your right. But again, does that make it sexist ????? So why not cut the rest of the cr*p, and the accusations ( which I find offensive, by the way, but certainly NOT sexist ), and discuss the OP. What about " stupid woman' makes it SEXIST ???

Even 'offensive' people say decent things. And while he may be anti-religion, he is NOT anti-religious people. IE don't be so sensitive. But, do we really need a slogan or mission statement ? What's next ? T-shirts ? ( YES, I want one )

For a distant observer the temperature of a BH is related to its entropy, which is directly proportional to the EH surface area. Temperature is also a measure of energy, and energy is frame dependant. The FoR of a distant observer is different for that at the EH, inside the EH, or at the possible singularity. Talking about temperature of a BH makes no sense unless you specify your FoR.

You are not the only one involved in this discussion, Ten oz. If JCM is responding to Rangerx's accusations, here is no need for you to quote him out of context and question the relevance to the OP. It is becoming annoying. I still find it amusing that ANYONE expects D Trump to do the 'civil and bipartisan" thing, it is simply not in his nature. I do expect the rest of Congressional and Senate elected officials to do what is best for the people. That means, either forcing a vote, or giving in for the greater good. Not posturing for ideological position. ( and in some people's eyes, that makes me 'far right', since that is 'false equivalence' and I actually give a sh*t about the people )

What roadblocks Zap ? I have often said that sexism exists, and have told that I don't like offending people. Yet you and others continuously confuse offense with sexism. The two are different. There is no doubt that calling someone a stupid 'whatever' is offensive. how about trying to prove it is sexist. That's where everyone has failed ( for 19 pages now )