MigL

I'm the last guy who would infringe on someone's right to any belief system they choose for themselves. However, the rules are, that even speculations must be backed up. And I don't see how any notion of 'heaven' can ever be backed up.

Really ? People are still being beheaded and stoned to death in certain parts of the world. Genocides have occurred in relatively advanced countries like Yugoslavia ( former ). Women ( and daughters ) are chattel to be used for furthering your economic status. Your skin color still determines your status in life. I could go on all day...

Since the 1970s, F-111s of the USAF could carry the AGM-69 SRAM tactical nuclear missile. A small 'theater' , battlefield nuke, with a 50 mi range. Small, of course is a relative term with nukes, and the warhead yield was about 15 kt ( fission ) and 200 kt ( fusion ).

Barbarians ? You think people have changed ?

Italy, from medieval times until unification in the 1800s, was composed of a large number of city states. They hired mercenary armies and fought against each other incessantly, ruling families rose to power through corruption and scheming ( read N Machiavelli, "the Prince' ). Certainly not the utopia you envision.

While LQG may require quantization of space-time because it is background independent ( like GR ,the background is the field ), and L Smolin has been focusing his research on LQG, other routes to quantum gravity, such as SString or M-theory work on a fixed background ( or stage, if you will, like QM ), and as such, don't require quantization of 'the stage'. And there are many more active areas of research for a quantum gravity theory. Very little in the way of testable predictions, though.. @1X0 relativity refers to relativity of measurements, NOT perception.

I suppose you'll want the recipe for crystal meth next...

And that's not what happens when two massive Black Holes come into contact...

Why is this labelling/branding or self-identification with Democrat/Republican so prevalent in the US ? Ther are very few places in the world which are so polarized along party lines like the US. As an example, we have a long running Liberal government in the province of Ontario, who have been involved in many 'scandals' over the years, including things like cancelling billion dollar projects in an effort to buy votes and win elections, and having senior staffers charged and convicted of erasing computer data to try and cover it up. It looked like we might finally form a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, until last week, when the party leader resigned due to accusations by several women of sexual assault, and a week later, the president of the party also resigned before an article came out in a national magazine claiming that he did the same. We have a provincial election coming up this summer and, as things stand right now, I'll probably be voting NDP ( our third party ) as their leader seems the most trustworthy. And in case you don't know, the NDP is a socialist party. Why is the rest of the world so 'flexible' with their voting, but US citizens cast votes with blinders on ?

I was the one who originally mentioned WVirginia ( top of page 4 ), in response to a post about moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources of energy. And while it is a laudable goal, WVirginia is an example of how things can go wrong. Not because its a liberal problem or a conservative problem. It is a problem with implementation of this worthwhile goal, that successive governments have ignored for years. Sure, the coal industry is dying, no longer needed or relevant, but no government for the last 40 yrs has encouraged new industry into the area. Outside of the big centers, the rest of the population feels forgotten and betrayed by both parties in government. All these people ( not just WVirginia ) who have become disenfranchised with Democrat/Republican Government decided to go with an 'outsider'. That is my opinion as to how you ended up with your current President. Just thought I would explain how WVirginia originally came into this discussion. It was meant to show how the ideals expressed in the OP, while admirable, can have disastrous consequences for some vulnerable people if not implemented with care.

Maple what, Ten oz? Toronto Maple Leafs, the hockey team ? Or Maple syrup ? That's basically all we have left. You Americans destroyed our aerospace industry. First, the legendary Arrow, with your promise of Bomarc missiles. And now Bombardier passenger jets thanks to Boeing. Thank goodness we still have the most fresh water in the world. it is our job ( well not mine, I'm not American ) to convince them iNow. ( wow, this thred moves too fast; can't keep up )

Fossil fuels is a misnomer. Methane is classified as a 'fossil fuel'. The biggest deposit of methane that I know of is Jupiter, which doesn't even have a solid surface, let alone plants and dinosaurs. The habitable zone is where we expect to find life possibly similar to ours. I.E. carbon based and dependent on liquid water. Carbon makes a huge number of compounds ( with hydrogen, oxygen and concatenates, I think that's the right term; John or Hyper ?? ). But so do sulfur and silicon ( remember the hot, living rocks in Star Trek: TOS ? ). So, who's to say a different kind of life couldn't evolve based on these elements, and much closer to the parent star, at temperatures of thousands of degrees ?

No sorry if I wasn't very clear iNow, I wasn't implying you were being hypocritical. I have said that your OP ( and even Raider's )is an excellent way for people to recognize where they can work together to achieve these ideals. Those are the kind of things I want to discuss. Sure, the government can shift away from coal mining, but it can't just forget about the people in west Virginia, who now have no viable economy, have a meth addiction epidemic, think their government doesn't give a sh*t about them, and in desperation, turn to an idiot like D Trump. Or the people of Detroit, where once good paying automotive industry jobs have gone overseas. And all the other places that think their government has forgotten about them ? These are the people who mistakenly think D Trump is their salvation. I know what D Trump is doing for them; kicking them while they're down. What do you propose to restore their faith in Government? To let them know they have a voice in their government, and keep them from repeating their mistake in the next election ? This has nothing to do with votes Ten oz. The ideals posted by iNow were more in line with B Sanders policies/platform than H Clinton's policies/platform. Whether they would have, or could have been implemented is a totally different story.,

Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but D Trump is planning to spend more money than B Obama did. Unfortunately, He's spending this Taxpayer money, to give tax cuts to his rich friends. He's raising taxes on one group, to finance tax cuts for the other. By your definition either side can claim him. Is the definition of liberal and conservative similar to visible and invisible ? ( sorry, that joke just won't quit ) If we were trying to bring about the OP ideals, Ten oz, H Clinton wouldn't have been the voter's choice ( and certainly not D Trump ). It would have been B Sanders. Proving that even people who voted Democrat don't support the OP's ideals. None of us are perfect, iNow. You posted a set of guidelines for establishing a better society ( notice I did not say they are liberal guidelines ). Some of these guidelines have to be weighed with respect to some of the others. For example, and I mentioned this on the first page ( what happened to post numbers ? ), a fair, living wage paid to all, makes global competition difficult with countries that don't have that requirement, or have a lower standard of living. Your choice is, then, to lose industries and viable employment, or to enact trade barriers, tariffs and controls. What is a good split ? Does the government pick specific industries to be 'winners' and 'losers', and by extension, their employees ? These are all worthwhile and lofty ideals you posted, but as I've said before , the devil is in the details of implementation.

Then why not title the thread 'ideas for a just society' Or something along those lines ? By calling it 'liberal views', it automatically says that another group of society doesn't share those views. And that isn't accurate. You did the labelling; seems somewhat disingenuous to accuse others of following your lead.

Sigh... I remember when the Republicans almost shut down government because they were opposed to exceeding the borrowing limit ( in 2011-12, don't quite remember ) Now trillion dollar yearly deficits are the norm ?

Simple enough... Not that I would consider them as such, but most anarchist groups identify themselves as left wing. You know, those guys who dress up in black masks at rallys that turn ugly and like to destroy all aspects of private property. Google 'left-wing anarchist groups' and the second web page that comes up is Wiki's list of anarchist organizations. There are 16 international organizations listed. Four North American. Another four Canadian. And twenty three American ones. ( disregard rest of world for now ) My favorite, by far, if only for their imaginative name, called themselves 'Up Against the Wall Motherfu*kers' out of New York city in the 70s. But as I've said, I personally, do not consider these groups as liberal, and I certainly don't consider Nazis as conservatives. ( though they might self-identify as such )

Its very easy to vilify conservatives if you define everything that is bad as a conservative policy and, everything that's good as a liberal policy. ( can a policy be left or right wing, or is it an attitude/mind-set people have ? specifically, the people who do the defining ) The fact remains that people who identify as conservatives have ( in the past ) implemented good policy, which benefitted society, as Raider pointed out. I know you're not American John, but do you think antagonizing and alienating almost half of Americans ( who identify as conservative ) will convince them to work together with the other half ( who identify as liberal ) ?

IIRC a ( super )nova actually converts gravitational potential into energy. When the core of the star has a high iron content and ceases fusion, gravity forces its outer layers to collapse as there is no more radiation pressure to support them. At some point these outer layers, which are still rich in light elements, reach pressures which will support fusion again, ignite, and blow away some of the outer layers in a violent release of energy. You can see the blown away'' gases/dust around around old nova, such as the Crab nebula, which has a rapidly spinning neutron star ( pulsar ) at its center, and was recorded by Chinese astronomers in 1054. As to the OP... An amount of anti-matter much, much smaller than a Jovian gas giant would do the trick. But you'd need to be able to deliver it to the center of the star.

All depends on how you define a field. And different models use different definitions. In the Newtonian model, gravity is defined as the gradient of a vector field ( potential). In the GR model, the metric tensor is the field ( potential ), and the metric tensor is basically space-time curvature or geometry. As AJB once said "In GR, geometry is the field".

By pushing down ( or adding weight ) to one of the boxes, you are decreasing the volume, or increasing the pressure of the trapped air volume. Since the trapped air of the one box is connected to the trapped air of the second box, the pressure in each will quickly become equivalent. Since the second box now sees a higher pressure of its trapped air, it will tend to rise in the water. Edit: By pushing the first box completely underwater, you should be able to force the second completely out of the water. ( assuming equl sized boxes )

You're right, and I apologize for the following vulgarity... You can pound a pussy as hard as you like, and its enjoyed, but if you pound balls, it hurts like hell.

Oh no! Not another thread about definitions. ( are curses visible ? )

Sorry, forgot units. Planck mass is about 2*10^-8 Kg. It is a large mass ( compared to electron's ) because close separations mean hi energy. And I would like to add that is a calculated ratio, as we can't achieve Planck scale energies to measure it. Whether that's a more accurate representation of relative strengths, it really makes no difference. Although some GUTs predict equal strength for all forces at Planck scale.

Wasted time. Wasted threads. No sooner do you finish lambasting Raider for daring to define Conservatism as it relates to what he thinks is wrong with Liberalism, than you all start saying what is wrong with Conservatism. And some of you ( John , Dimreepr ) aren't even American, so you shouldn't be as polarized as them. The point of the two threads, on liberalism and conservatism, should be to highlight how much people have in common, and how we can work together to build a better society where everyone benefits. NOT our differences. Yet instead of using these threads as a teaching tool, we ( certainly Americans ) insist on getting into pissing contests, and widen the tolerance gap. Does that seem like a worthwhile goal ? Moony, John and Dimreeper, I respect you guys, but the only thing beating up on Raider does is make him more committed to voting for D Trump in 3 yrs time ( he's 15 now I believe ). What problem does that solve ?