MigL

The EH might be 'apparent', since it is only a mathematical construct, Itoero. But it is also where all physical information regarding the BH is stored.

Black Holes have a temperature that is based on the fact that they have entropy. This entropy is proportional to the area of the event horizon The temperature is then manifested by radiation ( at the equivalent black body temperature ). The event horizon is the only external manifestation of Black Holes that we have, and although it is where all the physicality of the BH is manifested, it is not physical at all, but a mathematical construct.

Let's be clear... There is no rationale for building this wall It is not functionally effective, nor cost effective. And giving in to D Trump might embolden him to pull the same stunt again, But as INow has said... "I’m also not the one you need to convince, nor am I getting crushed by a missed paycheck tomorrow, or struggling to feed my kids due to missed food stamps, nor am I a soybean or hog farmer missing the bailout checks promised to alleviate the suffering the China trade war is causing, or any of the hundreds of thousands of other people being used as pawns by the man sworn to serve and protect us all. " Is the government not supposed to take care of its people ? If D Trump is going to be a jacka*ss, there isn't much that can be done about it ( short of impeachment, that's how American government runs ), so who is going to look after the people that INow has mentioned ? Are they on their own ? Are they pawns being used, and extorted by D Trump AND those opposed to him ? I don't want to see a wall built either, but I REALLY don't want to see people suffer needlessly because their government is dysfunctional.

Actually the 'Black Hole' is defined by the Event Horizon. It's black and a hole because things, including light, fall in but cannot come back out of the Event Horizon. The EH ( where as you say, Vescape = c ) is the only physical manifestation.

Thank you for always being reasonable. Maybe you should run for office.

You may be right. But thase same arguments are used by some in defense of the 2nd amendment, Maybe I should re-state my question... Not "How long are you willing to wait ?" But "How far are you willing to go ?"

Thank you INow, for the very detailed outline of events. I've never suggested an equivalence. But surely we can both agree that Democrats are the 'bigger man' and are considering the best interest of the country much more than D Trump and a lot of a*s-kissing Republicans. I would imagine you are concerned for your country also. Exactly how long are you willing to wait it out ?

It just seems to me that compromise seems to be forgotten in contemporary American politics. You'd be adding one third more wall to the southern border. Is winning the ideological fight worth the hardships of government workers without pay, a nation without a government, and an effectively closed border while this absurdity plays out ? I expect D Trump to be an uncompromising jacka*ss. But I thought we should expect better from a Democrat controlled Congress. Please explain it to me, INow.

Of the nine points made in your Monday 2:06 pm post, five directly reference D Trump and his administration. Then when I ask you to clarify your position, you take the high road ( Hah, sarcasm ) and claim I don't read your posts anyway, so why bother responding. Strange way to have a discussion, but I guess it's expected, since half of you Americans can't talk to the other half. And D Trump's solution, as well as yours it seems, is to throw a hissy fit, and refuse to govern or participate. How's that working out ? Really CharonY, you 'thought better of me' ? I thought the purpose of discussions was to examine both sides of an argument. Silly me, I forgot I was in the echo chamber of the Politics forum.

So Phi, your argument against 'the wall' seems to be "how can it be good if it was proposed by D Trump ?" Leaving aside the fact that there is already 400-500 mi of 'wall' across the Southern US border ( mostly fencing on unoccupied federal lands ), the 5.7 $Bill is for an additional 200 mi. Is it the symbolism that makes the 'wall' a bad thing ? If so, I gotta ask where was the outrage when the first several hundred miles were built ? ( Keeping in mind that I used to cross the border into the US several times every weekend when I was younger, with just a verbal confirmation that I was Canadian. Didn't need a passport before 9/11 ) Is border security a bad thing ? And if it isn't, and it's the 5.7 $Bill you balk at, what makes you think the Democrat proposals ( more border agents, surveillance drones and cameras, increased manpower and resources for processing LEGAL applicants, etc. ) would be any cheaper than a simple fence ( like you already have ) ? Or are we now just opposing anything D Trump proposes, on principle ? And while I often feel the same way, isn't that just leading to more polarization ? His 'base' will no doubt rally behind him, now that you 'liberal commie pinkos' ( I love that A Bunker expression ) have stopped him from keeping an election promise. In a world where 2 $bill buys one stealth bomber, is 5.7 $Bill too much to reopen government, get people back to work, and make a useless concession which could be used to leverage a win against D Trump on an important matter ? Please elaborate ( and educate me )

On the contrary Dimreepr. Neither Raider nor I are easily offended. You seem to think we should all be 'snowflakes'. ( Or am I confusing you intended meaning ? ) As Ten oz said in a previous post ( and I did a few pages ago ), you slip up and make an unwanted comment, you are informed it's not welcome, you apologise and stop making that kind of comment. End of story. No need to carry on calling a ( hopefully decent ) person a sexist bigot.

Nice of you to drop in again to check up on us, md65536. Welcome back.

Dohh !

Don't want to spoil your humorous quote from long ago, in a galaxy far, far away... But a "parsec' is a measure of distance, not time.

My apologies Ten oz. The 'strict definition' part was for you. The 'bringing up his age' part was for Dimreepr. I 'confused' my wording. Hope you weren't 'offended'. ( I feel I should add that after every post now )

Well, if you're going by strict definitions, Ten oz... T May did make comments that J Corbyn thought were stupid, and, she is a woman. So what is the problem ? Seems to me, after lecturing us all on what we are allowed to be offended by, you and Dimreepr have no problem bringing Raider's age up in your rebuttals. ( even the "bananas in Pyjamas ' children's show comment ) You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that everyone has the right to be offended by what THEY perceive to be an offence. And then proceed to 'knowingly' try and offend them. Luckily, Raider is probably used to this, and is not so thin-skinned.

I don't get it... What does Quantum Field Theory have to do with anything ? ( )

Ten oz's comment is accurate... "Unnecessary or irrelevant compliments may be just as insulting as explicit insults. Take another look at Ten Oz's post if you still don't get it." Anything MAY be offensive. If a person is having a bad ( stressful ) day, telling him the sky is blue might offend him/her. Offence is 'in the eye of the beholder' and people's perceptions vary widely. From Raider's willingness to put up with misguided comments to Phi and Strange's assumption that certain groups ARE ( they assume ) offended by those same trivial comments. But, offended or not, we are examining whether these perceived offences rise to the level of sexism. And that is what I'm not sure about. ( so I, for one, will not judge ) If someone of a religious background, on this forum, is offended when we talk about evolution, do we need to modify our behaviour ? Sure, he is offended, and one could argue an offence has been committed, as some of you have ( Ten oz ). Bot does that mean we are intolerant Religious Bigots ? Of course not. Similarly, the fact that you are offended by my calling you a woman ( Because of preconceptions in your own mind ), does not ( necessarily ) make me sexist. It's the English language. And if I continue to do it after you've expressed your discomfort at my comments, I'm an insensitive jerk ( but possibly still NOT sexist ). I don't know how to make this idea any clearer.

I would not say I'm going to great length to label it an identifier. I've repeatedly stated "I don't know" and therefore will not judge. Others, apparently don't need to know to pass judgement. I can pull up a couple of posts where you've called me "a fairly intelligent guy", Phi. ( usually on the way to an underhanded insult for my lack of understanding ) Why did you need to include the "guy' identifier ? And should every other guy on this forum have been offended ? I would think T May would be more offended at being called 'stupid', rather than 'one of the group'. Should we get rid of 'stupid' also ? ( I draw the line at "jackass', it is my favorite putdown ) No one has the right to NOT be offended

I wonder... If T May had made a good point, and J Corbyn had said "Intelligent woman", would that have applied to ALL women, or Just T May ? Why is an insult applicable to all womankind, but for a compliment it is just an identifier ? Or what if he meant to say "She is a stupid woman", but left out the "She is", as it is redundant ? As a matter of fact, INow, I could say" He is a stupid black man" and not have it be considered racist, just that all the other black men I know are much brighter ( Or Jews, Irish men, or Canadians ). But when the subject is clearly known, the "He is a" part becomes redundant. And, it seems, people CHOOSE to interpret it in the worst way. Seems to me we are going to great lengths for an excuse to label J Corbyn's comment, sexist.

40 deg heat since Christmas ? Poor you. Try living in the Northern Hemisphere. We're glad they invented thermal underwear and parkas.

I'm in the habit of doing a thorough cleaning of cookies ( and other assorted crap ) everytime I shut down. And I use about four different computers depending on where I am in the house. That means everytime I come back to SFn ( or Modern Military Aviation at Key Publishing Forums, for the last year ), I get the annoying message about cookies. Its a pain in the a*s, but you learn to live with it.

I can agree on this part Ten oz "To an individual how is this not true. It you are legitimately offended by something who am I or anyone else to say that you should not be?" But then your claim to be offended should not immediately mean that the offender is sexist ( as Phi is implying ) A sexist, racist or any other discriminatory offence should be evident to all. Otherwise only complainers are discriminated against. J Corbyn may have claimed he said 'people' for this specific reason. An accidental mis-speak makes him sexist. when clearly, people who know him much better than us North Americans, claim he certainly isn't. ( incidentally I've been calling Theresa May, 'E May'. Elizabeth May is a Canadian politician. I know even less about British politics than I thought. )

What if everyone else had started chiming in with their own explanations of the reason Ten oz had offended you ? ( he's never liked you/you are too thin skinned/you immediately jump to profanities/you hate measures of weight... ) Instead a simple explanation, and its over. For what its worth you two are better than politicians, or newsmen ( wait, is that sexist ? ).

But if E May had said, after the news broke, that she was offended by the implication that it was a gender disparaging comment, J Corbyn might have offered up an explanation ( "No, it was an identifier" ) or an apology ( if it was ). He may have still needed to apologize for the 'stupid' part of the comment, unless that has an explanation also. ( they are politicians, are they not ?) @Strange No I have been saying all along that I don't know, and reserve judgement. Others have been saying that the only criterion for offensive behavior, is whether the 'audience' is offended or not.