MigL

I stand corrected. Thank you John and CharonY.

The Big Bang ( possible ) singularity is in the past, while the Black Hole ( possible ) singularity is in the future. Huge difference. Temperature is easiest to understand by considering a gas. The more energetically the gas particles bump against each other, the higher the temperature. Past a Black Hole's event horizon there is no 'compression'. Everything is moving in one direction. Nothing can move away from the ( possible ) singularity. Nothing can even slow down. So how can anything bump into anything else to give rise to a compression or temperature ? Anything that crosses an event horizon encounters nothing ( nichts, nada, niente, rien, etc. ) on its way to its future encounter with the possible singularity. The interior of the event horizon is really 'empty' space. I'm not even sure if you can model virtual particles in there ( Mordred ?? ). The only 'temperature' of a Black Hole is derived from the entropy ( area ) of its event horizon.

Yes, it was said the emails were deleted to 'cover' what she knew about Benghazi. So, I believe I covered that.

I was a supporter of H Clinton since she announced her candidacy. She seems competent and capable ( although a bit of a sore loser ). And seeing the joke that the President of the US has become, I guess I'm still a supporter and wish she had won. I did grow somewhat disillusioned with her during the campaign though, not so much all that crap about the emails, but the DNC's 'fix' of the nomination process. If they are going to cheat at that, what else will they cheat at ( if H Clinton even knew about the 'fix' ); But I still would have voted for her. The fact that she lost cost me over Can$ 400, on lunch and drinks for the four guys I bet against There were a lot of accusations levelled against her during the campaign, some as late as two weeks before the election, and people say 'where there is smoke, there is fire', but sometimes the smoke is just steam being let off during the heat of the campaign.

My post was regarding heroin as a painkiller, CharonY. And there are numerous studies as to its effectiveness. I really don't think its legal anywhere that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think I'm being judgemental at all Stringy. You could live the healthiest life and make all the right choices but still eventually die of cancer. It is a built in genetic failure mechanism. Eventually your cells stop reproducing perfectly and anomalies develop in their reproduction; these anomalies or abnormal cells are, by definition, cancer. Malignant ones reproduce quickly and spread. The addict on the other hand, is all about choice. And if you re-read, I don't wish to deny the addicts either. I just want cancer sufferers taken care of too ( or better yet, first )

Sorry for my absence, I was in Toronto watching the Toronto FC kicking the Seattle Sounder's ass, and hoist the MLS trophy. I have never accused you of being an apologist for a liberal sexist, RangerX. What I have accused you of is defending a sexist, who waitforufo threw in your face just because he is a Liberal, and you , being equally partisan, took the bait and defend him ( even if you abhor his actions ) also because he is a Liberal. Your partisanship is on display by the way you generalise about Conservatives in your above post, painting them all with the same brush, and claiming none are 'moral'. Bigoted much ?

Governmenta all over the world ( OK, here in Canada anyway ) are announcing programs to fight the Opioid crisis. Millions of dollars are being announced to provide drugs to addicts to help ease their suffering and protect society. Yet these people chose the path to their suffering. Why not start with legalizing drugs to cancer sufferers who, to a large extent, are not responsible for their suffering. If an opioid addict chooses to abstain, eventually he will not be suffering. If a cancer sufferer takes heroin to ease his suffering, he's still faced with a painful death. I know which one I'd help first. How about you ?

Thanks again for the comparison, RangerX. You seem to want to prove every point I make. What if, during the H Weinstein discussion, everytime someone mentioned what Harv had done, I countered with... "Sure, but at least he's seeking treatment, look at what Louis B Mayer did to Judy Garland, and got away with it" Would that have been seen as a fair comment ? Or would you have jumped all over it as I'm doing with you ?

Just two thoughts. Other than the fact that this is just another of D Trump's inane announcements, and is probably designed to draw our attention away from his problems ( if he has the capacity to plan such a thing )... Over 40 years of NOT recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, has not brought peace. This will not change anything !

You're being disingenuous, Ten oz. You can draw an association between just about anything. The fact that A Franken is in a position of power, as a comedian/entertainor or a Senator/politician is what allows him to disrespect women. And the fact that it doesn't happen just in politics, but with producers like H Weinstein, newsmen like C Rose and M Lauer, and so many others is proof that it is not a symptom of political ideology. There are plenty of threads about Democrats vs Republicans as there are about D Trump. Why does every thread have to devolve into a discussion about the polarization of American politics or D Trump's idiocy ? As I've stated previously, the polarization , which you and others seem to embrace, is what got us into this mess ( presidential idiocy ) in the first place. But if you guys want to make every thread about Republicans vs Democrats, or about D Trump, then knock yourselves out. I've said my piece and you guys ( like waitforufo ) wanna keep contributing to the problem. Majority rules.

Authoritarian ?? No, not at all. But I am questioning your comprehension.

I'm sorry iNow, but if this thread is about Democrat morals as opposed to Republican morals, I must have misread the OP.

Same strategy, eh Ranger ? "Yeah, but waitforufo did it first" What's next? " Sure I killed someone, but the other guy killed ten" A Franken, the politician, did not get turfed by his party because of his politics. ( I thought that was his true calling. He was good at it, not as a mediocre comedian ) He was forced to resign because A Franken, the man, mistreated women. Democrats ( and Republicans ) have no bearing in this conversation unless you're doing a comparison or drawing equivalency.

And I'm sure there are people (whether Republican or Democrat ) who don't have to take responsibility for their bad actions because they never behaved badly towards women. So what if he takes responsibility for his actions ??? He did commit them ! I ( and his victims ) don't care if he's a good or bad Politician, Democrat or Republican. He's a flawed human being who happens to be in a position of power, and preys on women. Why do you insist on getting down in the mud with waitforufo, and making this a discussion about which politics is more 'honorable' ? I don't remember politics being mentioned at all in the OP ( although we all knew ), so why take the bait ?

The Gravity probe B results are very close to the expected results predicted by GR, Mordred. GR has frame dragging and a vanishing torsion, while Einstein-Cartan has torsion. Doesn't the GPB result for frame dragging ( from your post ) put a nail in the coffin of Cartan torsion ? Or can a third model provide both ?

And again RangerX... Right now D Trump would take Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun if it would help save him from the looming impeachment. But what does that have to do with A Franken and his attitudes towards women ?

Just as clarification of my stance... When we discussed H Weinstein, there was no mention of his political affiliation. The man was simply a pig, just like K Spacey, Louis C K, C Rose, and so many others are. No one gives a damn whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Their victims certainly don't. But Waitforufo tosses the bait, and some people take the bait, and make it a political discussion, rather than one of powerful people preying on helpless victims. Its interesting that as a parting shot A Franken did exactly the same; he brought up D Trump, in saying "I'm resigning, yet a man who admitted assault on tape is in the White House" ( paraphrasing ), as if he feels unjustly treated. I wonder if his victims feel he is being treated unfairly ?

Fermions can also 'pair up' so that they exhibit integer spin and, as such, obey Bose-Einstein statistical rules.

Haven't read the article you posted Mordred, but I would agree with Strange and Beecee. What mechanism would stop the further collapse once neutron degeneracy fails ? And if neutron degeneracy doesn't fail, there is no need for an event horizon.

But I'm not talking about the politicians. I'm talking about members of this forum. I've often stuck up for Waitforufo, as have you, but we both know that this thread about A Franken was started to vilify Democrats. The fact that Franken is a Democrat has no bearing on the matter; If he did the things he admits to doing ( and has apologized for ), he is not the person most of us thought he was. By the same token, RangerX responding " Yeah, but what about the Republicans and their President " is an attempt at equivalency, or rather one-up-manship. " Sure our guy did this, but yours did much worse ". Does he think that matters to Franken's victims/accusers, or that, the fact there's worse people than Franken, somehow make it better ? There are plenty of threads where we can discuss what a horrible human being D Trump is. Or some other Republicans. But this thread is about A Franken. Not the Senator. Not the Democrat. But the human being who has made, and acted on, some pretty bad decisions.

I apologise for the neg-rep accusation. It was unwarranted. I 'distance' people who don't abide by the rules of a civil society. I don't 'distance' labels like liberal/Democrat or Conservative/Republican. (That's what got America to this bad situation ) I don't accuse people of false narratives, and in the next line say... "I'm sure you'll insist otherwise, then insist you never insist in the next breath" Stick to what I actually say, not what you think I'll say.

TBH I always assumed RangerX to be much younger than myself ( I'm 58 ) I was just reading a newspaper article about M Lauer and some radio personality that was recently fired ( forget his name ) for some indiscretion where he touched a woman's back. The article specifically mentioned that he was a Democrat. In what other nation on Earth is a person's political affiliation responsible for their inappropriate behaviour towards women ? Why is American politics so polarized that each side tries to vilify the other with the worst human traits ? I don't agree with Waitforufo's OP. Other than the fact that Franken disrespects women, I couldn't care less about his politics. I have an intelligent, beautiful niece, and I wouldn't want her to be groped or disrespected by a Republican or a Democrat. Similarly, RangerX's arguments smack of " so what if a Democrat did this, look at what a Republican President did ". And he can deny it all he wants ( or try to win the argument by down-voting me ) , but it is 'whataboutism', and polarizing and divisive politics. ( and TBH I always assumed RangerX was Canadian; yet he fits in so well with American politics ) Oh, and I instill two different drops in my eyes for my Glaucoma ( that's why Clint squints ), but was recently added a water pill to help drainage/reduce pressure. Sometimes getting into a bathroom on time isn't funny at all.

How is it derogatory if he's taken full responsibility for it ? That makes him a pig, and does not matter if he's a Democrat, Republican, Senator or President. People are judged by their own actions, RangerX. You admonish Waitforufo for bringing in political affiliation, yet you do it every chance you get. ( and that's what I commented on ) Could the piss running down your leg be your own, due to senility ? ( sorry, couldn't resist, hope you know I'm joking )

Isn't this the 'whataboutism' that you're always complaining about, RangerX. This is a thread about A Frankin, just another pig who takes advantage of women. I have nothing to say about him, so I haven't made any comments. Why do you feel the need to say " but what about the behavior of D Trump " ( another pig who happens to be president ) Trump's behavior in no way excuses Frankin's. You can't complain when others do it, if you do it yourself.

IIRC, Strange is right ( again ). I don't recall where I saw the math, I'll have to take a look, but I recall that the max angular momentum, or the max charge allowed to a BH does not result in the 'explosion of that BH, but rather, the shedding of the event horizon. As this would leave a possible naked singularity, its probably not physically possible.