MigL

Oh yes, and we've been spending all our time saying women are to blame for being attacked ???? Obviously we have a difference of opinion, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. So I'll keep telling women I care about to be careful out there because the world is an unforgiving place, and it may keep them from getting assaulted. You'll keep telling them its not their fault for getting assaulted.

NO, obviously not equal. But they should not be entirely dismissed either.

Interesting take. But what if we discussed ways smaller countries could stick together to stand up to the 'Big Bad Wolf' ? Or we discussed ways for them to bring these unfair dealings to light for the rest of the world, such as in a World Court ? Or we discussed ways for the people of Puerto Rico to be better educated so that they know they have other options ? In other words why can it not be a two pronged approach; protection for the victim as well as taking down the perpetrator ? ( see, you call it blame, I call it protection )

Doesn't matter if she's a Republican. She can be bought. And she has more 'exposure' on Daily Mail than anyone ( except maybe M Merkel, Prince Harry's squeeze ), And I just lost all respect for the Rock also. Why can't entertainers/media personalities stick to what they know ?

This thread was originally about how power over others is used inappropriately, specifically with regards to inappropriate sexual advances. And since the members of this forum LOVE analogies, I' m going to suggest one more, but not involving sex... A lot of greedy, powerful corporations exploit cheap labour in third world countries, just as a lot of rich, powerful individuals exploit disadvantaged people. The companies conspire to keep these third world economies in shambles so that they can maximize their own profits instead of paying equitable wages for labour ( or benefits/pensions/environmental regulations etc. ). The powerful individuals use their power to buy influence, take advantage of the disenfranchised, get elected President of the US, and amass even more power and wealth ( you probably thought I was going to say D Trump, but he's just a clown; the better example is V Putin ). If we started a thread discussing how these third world countries or disadvantaged people could better help themselves, the actions they should take, the protection they should demand, the people they should vote for, etc., who here would say that we shouldn't be talking about this, as it implies that, if they have to take some action, then part of the fault is being assigned to them ?

Can't be bothered to read your lengthy post and all its links. Got as far a the 'quark sea' in a proton, that you claim gives it most all its mass... I can assure you, it is virtual bosons, the gluons, which comprise the 'sea', and give hadrons most of their mass.

And how does gravity work for other leptons, like electrons, muons, neutrinos. Or for bosons, for that matter, which also couple gravitationally. Oh well, back to the drawing board...

When R Reagan ran for the presidency, he hadn't been a media personality for about 30 yrs. This all started with the clown President, D Trump, and don't kid yourself, the media may pretend to hate him, but he gets ratings and sells papers ( he butters their bread ). Most real politicians are boring, and most people don't like reading about, or watching them. But America being what it is, I can see a bunch of back room Republicans or Democrats, picking a suitably popular person to run for the presidency, while they pull the puppet strings. If the Democrats run O Winfrey, I can see the Republicans drafting K Kardashian for their candidate. All they need to do is look good on TV, and generate lots of free publicity so that their name is recognised at the ballot box. What a circus !!!

"Who the hell suggested that ?" Maybe I should go back and find it... It was suggested that the civil rights movement went forward because Rosa Parks and M L King put themselves in precarious situations to enact change. That's who.

I shouldn't have to explain, John, because you're a very bright guy... The comment was made earlier ( don't recall by whom ) that saying women should practice risk mitigation gives the perpetrators an excuse for their behaviour. So their logic is that we should not discuss risc mitigation because it enables the predators, who Zap named 'the dregs of society'. Those are the dregs that are effectively preventing him from discussing how to protect his wife or ( hypothetical ) daughter. Just got back from lunch ( I'm NA Eastern time) with a woman, and would you believe this was the topic of discussion. And it turns out she agrees. She considers the attitude of some men just one of the many risks she has to consider every day ( as do we all ) and she would be stupid not to try to mitigate some of those risks. I could be wrong, but it seems Gees was the only woman on this thread ( the OP ) . and she seems to have left. I know we have other women members. Your opinion is extremely valuable, much more so than ours. Please share your ideas on the issue.

And that won't solve the problem either, John. Neither our sons or daughters behave as we would like. But, yes its a start.

Wasn't at RR, was it ?

Ok, we've established that there is a problem with unwanted sexual advances/assaults on women. Now let's try to come up with some workable solutions. Zapatos has suggested risk mitigation as one small part of addressing the problem ( and I happen to agree with him ). Risk mitigation by itself, of course won't solve the problem, how could it ? It may include being aware of your surroundings, avoiding certain situations or being appropriately dressed for those situations, knowing your rights and avenue for complaints, letting others know where you are, etc. ( sounds exactly like the risk mitigation I do when going on vacation ) The rest of you guys have suggested this increases the problem, and that men's attitudes should change/ the world should be safe for all. As to mechanisms for bringing this change about all we've gotten is that women should continue to be assaulted ( without taking precautions )as that will bring about this change. Not one person has made concrete suggestions, like changing laws ( as if that would help in other countries ), changing the education system to empower women, or alternatively, educate men on women's issues ( but alas, there will still be people intent on doing bad things to others ). So who is taking the more realistic approach here ?

I beg to differ. The subject of risk minimization brought a response that such an attitude is hypocritical, and a big part of the reason why the problem never goes away ( see the top of this page ). And an up-vote. So at least two people agree with that assessment.

You're right, it doesn't solve anything... But maybe me and Zap are tired of being labelled defenders of rapists and women's assailants ( by certain members ), for advocating a course of action which may mitigate some rapes and assaults on women. A course of action which everyone readily uses in their daily life to reduce certain other ( non gender related ) risks caused by other people. That was the point of the example. Are we going to solve the broader issue being discussed anytime soon ? Of course not. Until then, I will advise women I care about to minimize their risks. ( just like I would advise Phi NOT to go strolling through Central Park at night )

I believe the aerospace industry is still the largest user of Titanium. It basically combines the high strength of steel with the light-weight of Aluminum, along with better corrosion and temperature resistance than Aluminum. It is expensive to work and has lost a lot of its shine compared to composite materials ( the preferred choice for strength and lightness ), but still sees applications in hi-temp and/or hi-stress areas ( of turbine engines for example ). As far as its chemical properties are concerned, the only thing I remember from Gr. 13 Chemistry, is that Titanium will burn in a Nitrogen atmosphere.

That wasn't the intent and you know it. If I urged you not to go for a stroll through Central Park ( or any 'unsafe' place ) at night, would Phi accuse me of defending muggers and robbers ? Because that is exactly what he's doing WRT this OP.

Very well, Phi. Lets forget this emotionally charged subject, for a minute and consider another of society's problems, that happens to be genderless. I think we can all agree that people who mug, rob and do harm to others are responsible for their actions and their victims have no blame. Would you take a stroll through Central park at night ? Or stroll down Mulberry St in Baltimore ? Or parts of Detroit or Washington DC ? Or would you take precautions ? And does the fact that I would urge you to take precautions, mean that I'm defending muggers, robbers and gang-bangers ? Or that I don't wish those problems didn't exist ? And sadly no, I'm in my late fifties; women don't 'grab' me anymore. ( damn, old age sucks ! )

Wow, you went off on a tangent, Phi. ( did your dad really clean his shotgun in front of your sister's dates; I thought that only happened in the movies ) Maybe you're being idealistic, or maybe naïve, and striving for a better world is certainly commendable, but until then, risk mitigation is a must. And as Zapatos has repeatedly pointed out, it isn't just women's problems. There are lots of cases where the world is 'ugly' for ALL people. Should we all wait until the world is ideal for everyone and take no precautions to minimize risks ? And simple education, or mind-set is not the answer. It's not that some men cannot control themselves; the problem is they don't want to. Yes, there are evil people and dangers in this world. Worked out well for Rosa Parks, iNow, but maybe MLK should have taken some precautions, as it regretfully cost him his life ( eventually ).

This isn't about assigning blame, Phi. from past discussions we've had you know that I think people should be more responsible for their own actions. So the blame rests fully with the perpetrator of the actions, and in no way with the victim. But there is another aspect to consider. Sometimes it's about prevention. I remember you once shared that you have a daughter. If she was going 'clubbing' dressed 'provocatively' ( I realise that's the wrong word to use ), would you not, as a parent, offer advice ( knowing what kind of men are out there ) that maybe she should not dress so risque' ? As a parent are you not morally obligated to advise your daughter about the dangers of the world ? Just as you taught her to look both ways before crossing the street ? The world should not be the way it is, but being aware of its imperfections is always better than being naïve to those imperfections.

So John, just to be clear... If one of your children decides to cross the street without looking both ways, and almost gets hit by a bus, who do you blame ? The victim, your child, for failing to do his/her due diligence ? Or the bus driver, for not having enough control of his vehicle to avoid the incident ? I'm not taking sides in this discussion, I think Gees has made some excellent points, as have you guys. I'm just sitting on the fence, and asking for a clarification of your ( respected ) opinion.

I think you have it backwards... Electromagnetism uses a finite set of parameters and is 'asymptotically free', such that a quantum field theory of electromagnetism ( QED ) still has a finite set of parameters because it is renormalizable. Gravity has a finite set of parameters classically, but is perturbatively non-renormalizable, and at high energies, the parameters become intractable and will not go away. Various methods around this obstacle have been attempted... An effective field theory , which makes use of a 'cut-off' and basically discards un-needed parameters. String theory, which is like QM, background dependant. LQG, which like GR, is background independent. And many other approaches

Uhmm... Electromagnetism also requires a fixed number of parameters, and is, then, a parametric theory. Yet quantum electrodynamics seems to work just fine. I used to have a real Spirograph...

Yeah, you're right. We just shortened MDI to Methylene di-isocyanate, since TDI is Toluene di-isocyanate. ( cut me some slack, the last chemistry class I took was last year of high school, 40 yrs ago ) And, yes, we did use organic cartridge respirators for MDI, and supplied air in the rare use of TDI. I know of one person who became slightly sensitized and wasn't allowed to work with isocyanates anymore. I still work with him at my current place of employment where we make Phosphine ( much less dangerous ). His only symptoms were the allergic type, skin reaction. I did not know you could get respiratory problems from skin contact.

Potential energy is a property related to the configuration of the system. As such, it is not necessarily only about gravitational force. While an arrangement of test masses will have gravitational potential, so will an arrangement of charges have electromagnetic potential. Even two objects connected by a spring will have a potential energy due to their configuration. The potential energy of an object is exchanged for kinetic energy once the potential forces that object into motion. The motion of the object changes the configuration of the system, and increases/decreases the potential energy of the object.