MigL

My apologies for thinking you had lost interest, Mildred. Planning a trek through the desert ? Or are you going on a survivor style reality show ?

Don't get me wrong Swans, I don't think B Obama was a bad president; On the contrary, he was exactly what the US needed at the time. And obviously you know a lot more about new legislation in the US, but it seems that a moron like D Trump can do the things that are important to him ( or make him look good ) by Executive Order, but B Obama was stifled at every turn by a contrary Congress. Why couldn't B Obama issue an EO to the ATF, so that anyone selling firearms, without the required checks, be fined ? Or more strictly enforcing magazine capacities, conversions from semi-auto to automatic fire, ammunition purchases, etc. ? These and other similar measures would, I believe. keep a deranged person from carrying more than a dozen semi-automatic rifles, and ammunition clips, into the 32nd floor of a busy hotel. So, either B Obama didn't care enough ( like every other president before him ), after multiple mass-shootings under his watch, or I don't have Executive Orders figured out quite yet

Or he could go on the roof...

I see someone disagrees with my assertion that this is not to be attributed to D Trump, but rather an on-going problem with American gun laws. Maybe I should clarify my stance. ( or maybe my admonishment of RangerX for doing so ? ) D trump just got here. B Obama didn't do any thing about these laws that allow people to buy guns and ammo to kill/injure over 500 people. Nor did G W Bush. Nor B Clinton before him. Nor Bush senior or any presidents that preceded him since the Constitution was enacted. Saying the problem is due to one person/president is ignoring the actual problem ( and an attempt at political one-upmanship ). D trump has a multitude of faults, we don't need to 'make up' more to avoid dealing with the real issue.

Depends on the problem... Like, if you're trying to pee into a toilet/urinal that's 6 ft away. ( I am being sooo facetious )

Uh guys... I think the OP has lost interest.

Leave it to you to make this about white privilege. Did he terrorize those people, as well as injuring and killing a large number of them, and making the rest of us afraid of attending public events ? He certainly did. So he is a terrorist ! And since when have you ( or anyone else ) cared about what D Trump says anymore ? This shouldn't be about scoring cheap political points ( should I call you Patton Oswalt ? ) It is a tragedy, and the American government has to wake up and do something about their gun laws.

At the risk of putting myself outside the universe again ( sorry Mordred )... A hot early universe, even though absent of matter, still has the property of energy. Energy gravitates, IE gives rise to curvature of any pre-existing geometry, and further, gravity, because of self-coupling, gives rise to further curvature. The geometry is, of course, the co-ordinate system of three spatial and the time dimension. And no, BeeCee you cannot remove the singularity from a BH. The Event Horizon is a property of the singularity, and you cannot have a naked singularity

What is this thread about ? A bunch of guys bitchin' and whining like the women in the video ? Yes, men and women are different ( duuh ). Both have various degrees of strengths and weaknesses ( evolution helped with that ). The only problem is when one sex is considered better than the other

Just as volume of space increases with expansion, and, as Eise notes, vacuum/dark energy increases with the volume, we also have gravitational separation increasing. This leads to a NEGATIVE ( because of convention and abhorrence of infinities ) increasing gravitational potential. And no, I'm not bright enough to figure out if the negative gravitational potential is equal to the positive dark energy

A sheet of plastic film, horizontally sloped, a few feet off the ground, will cool down much faster at night than the ground. Warmer, moisture bearing, air next to the ground will rise, water will condense on the cool plastic, nd run down the slope into a container. This should give you some water for the next day, although I've never done this; Only seen it in movies/TV.

OK, I'll try wording it differently. How would the gravitational field ( torsion or no torsion ) of a million solar mass BH, be different than that of 1 million Stars (solar masses ) at a distance of 30 000 LY ? Torsion, much like frame dragging is a much more localized effect, and would have the largest impact on stars in the central bulge. Remember that a one million solar mass BH is about a tenth of a LY in extent; I find it hard to believe torsion effects would not be trivial at 30 000 LY As Strange also seems to agree, DM particles come together under the influence of gravity, but whereas matter particles,, as they approach each other, have other interactions in play that rob them of energy, and so 'stick' to each other more quickly, DM particles retain more of their kinetic energy and 'overshoot'. The process takes much longer to converge into a structure. Edit: GR has frame dragging and a vanishing torsion. Einstein Cartan has non vanishing torsion, which is nice for other predictions it makes. But ( I thought ) Gravity Probe B had detected frame dragging ? Does that imply the absence of torsion ?

A I Million solar mass BH, or better yet, one comprised of ALL the stars and mass of the galaxy, would have a Shwarzschild radius of 0.2 LY. Given that the spiral arms are at a distance of about 30 000 LY, the effect that such a BH would have, would be exactly equivalent to that of an equivalent amount of mass/stars/dust. At such distance geometry is not so radically curved, so why would gravity act different ? And why would closer structures , such as the central bulge and the orbits of stars comprising it, not be affected ?

Darn it... I was so looking forward to the prize. Fine, I'll buy myself a beer...

Not quite... At the casino, or the lottery, there are more ways to lose than win. In this case the two infinities are equal, and, as there are no other choices, the probability is 1 in 2. ( Infinities cannot be a divisor, but the can be cancelled, and it's done all the time when calculating limiting values )

Aside from Scherado confusing the problem, it actually seems simple enough... Lets simplify by assigning odd numbers to all the blank cards, and even numbers to all the face cards ( Strange has already alluded to this ) All odd numbers, and also even numbers, are countably infinite, which means they can be placed on a one-to-one correspondence with the set of all natural numbers. Which means they are of the same class infinity ( see Cantor ). IE there is no difference in the number of even and odd choices. The problem then reduces to , 'what is the probability of any number being even ?'. And the probability calculation is not one of dividing by infinity but of having one of two choices odd or even. Physicists often simplify problems to rework intractable situations, and last time I checked, so did mathematicians...

Most books I get these days are E-books, but I do have K Thorne's book in softcover, and I often use for quick BH related reference. If you don't mind a little math, Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is very handy to have ( hasn't been packed in a box yet ); It offers plenty of verbal explanations as well as mathematical ones, but can be rather pricy. Another excellent reference is Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles, also a little math heavy, but offering plenty of verbal guidance so I don't get 'lost'. ( its been a while since I did any 'real' math )

A QUANTUM particle has an indeterminate aspect. If the experiment is set up to detect the wave aspect, that's what you'll measure. If the experiment is set up to detect the particle aspect, that's what you'll measure.

If your nephew was still alive, he'd slap you upside the head. If the chair isn't pushing up on your ass, what's keeping it from hitting the floor ? You're in a negative gravitational potential that's accelerating your ass towards the floor at 10 m/s/s. Have someone kick the chair from under you and see what happens.

Yeah, you wrote antimatter in the last paragraph, and got me all confused. Maybe you can still edit it to Dark matter. Would Dark Matter have taken longer to form structures ? It couples gravitationally, the same as matter, but when it starts approaching structure, there is no EM interaction forcing it to 'stick together'. As a result, it may have taken about ten times longer to form structures ( galactic halos ) than regular matter structures ( galaxies ). If you're going to attribute the galactic rotation curves to the presence of large central BHs, don't you still need to modify their gravitational interaction ? As far as we know BHs, no matter the size, interact gravitationally the same way as the equivalent amount of mass.

'Hey, you're not Bazzy ! I would reply... " Sure , as soon as you define MAN and WOMAN."

Why not make it a little tougher and use different sized wheels ?

Let me preface this by mentioning that I don't care what people do in the pursuit of personal happiness; Gender reassignment and same sex marriage don't affect me in any way. Just so you don't get the wrong impression that I'm opposed to them. I often take a contrary view to stir up discussion, so you can attack my argument as 'practice'. This is the argument... I walk into a doctor's office and tell him/her I'm Napoleon. Yet I'm not a short, balding man. I don't have a curved nose nor a French accent. And I don't keep my hand tucked in my vest/jacket. They put in a padded cell. I walk into a doctor's office and tell him/her I'm a woman. Yet I don't have the biological traits of a woman, but rather, of a man. They schedule me for sex reassignment surgery. Why is one a mental disorder, and not the other ?

Could you please elaborate on the relation between BH size and the anti-matter problem ( 10 Bill yrs ago ??? ). Also, a possible mechanism for 'ejecting' a million ( or billion ) solar mass BH from the central core of a galaxy without the tell-tale tidal gravitational disruption, as I would think the tightly packed central cluster would be severely deformed. Yet you mention that only the arms are disrupted/deformed. And what would drive the 'ejection' ? We don't see any of this. ( mathematical models are great, but, at some point, they have to fit observations )

Sure... The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that if an electron ( as an example ) is localized within a very small box then its momentum, and energy, become more and more indeterminate. If it can be localized within a dimensionless box, then its momentum and energy could be infinite. IE although we treat them as point particles,quantum effects place a limit on their lower spatial extent. I don't recall where I read the details of the other assertion, but found this in the Wiki entry on Micro Black Holes, and it's much clearer than what I posted... " Elementary particles are equipped with a quantum-mechanical, intrinsic angular momentum (spin). The correct conservation law for the total (orbital plus spin) angular momentum of matter in curved spacetime requires that spacetime is equipped with torsion. The simplest and most natural theory of gravity with torsion is the Einstein-Cartan theory.[7][8] Torsion modifies the Dirac equation in the presence of the gravitational field and causes fermion particles to be spatially extended.[9] The spatial extension of fermions limits the minimum mass of a black hole to be on the order of 1016 kg, showing that mini black holes may not exist." Reference: (9) ^ Nikodem J. Popławski (2010). "Nonsingular Dirac particles in spacetime with torsion". Phys. Lett. B. 690: 73–77. Bibcode:2010PhLB..690...73P. arXiv:0910.1181 . doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.04.073.