MigL

The Z and the photon would have been essentially similar, but the Z ( and Ws ) gained the ability to couple with the Higgs field when the electroweak symmetry break occurred. This gives them mass, and reduces their interaction range.

Try it on a globe, Koti. All lines of longitude go north/south, are parallel at the equator and meet at the North pole.

Ooops !

Using simple gas laws, if the universe was at Hydrogen combination temperature ( approx. 3500 deg ), 300 mil yrs after the Big Bang event ( approx. 13.5 bil yrs ago ), and is at 2.7 deg currently, then it has expanded by over 1000 times. This is volume, so separati0ns would have increased by over 10 times in the same period.

It is impossible to visualize 4dimensional space-time, so to simplify and allow for visualization, lets reduce it to 2 dimensions. Say you and I are 2dimensional people living on the surface of a plane ( ever read Flatland ? ) and we both decide to travel North. We would be travelling in parallel directions, so our paths would never meet. If we now introduce curvature, such that we are not on a plane but on the surface of a sphere, and again, you and I start at the equator and travel straight North ( in what seem to be parallel paths ), we find ourselves approaching each other, and eventually bump into each other ( at the North pole ). We have been travelling parallel paths, but, on this curved surface, 'straight' is dependent on the curvature, and parallel paths do meet. If we did not know that we were living on a 'curved' surface we might call this tendency, for objects to move towards each other and meet, a force, or gravity. Extending this to 4dimensions ( mathematically of course ) is how GR models gravity.

I was thinking more along the lines of seatbelts... Why should the government take away my right NOT to wear a seatbelt, if I've never been killed in an automobile accident ? That aside, I have to disagree with you. While you're probably just thinking of surveillance rights ( and you've done nothing wrong, so why worry ), once enacted, it becomes a very slippery slope. Who knows what other rights may be ultimately taken from you as a way of demonstrating that something is being done. There are things that can be done, that punish the perpetrators and enablers of such actions; Not ourselves !

In a large star at the end of its life, when the iron core exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit ( electron degeneracy pressure limit ), there is a rapid collapse. The outer layers collapse as well, and then rebound. The resulting pressure wave can rekindle nuclear processes in these outer layers. If the amount of fusible material is very large in the outer layers, there will be significant radiation pressure to create a spectacular supernova. If not, the outer layers will just 'sputter' and then collapse as well, settling down into a BH. Stellar make up is different for differing stars ( gen I, gen II ), and will result in different collapse modes.

When v<<c then velocities add linearly to a very good approximation. This is for speeds of planes, trains and automobiles. If v is of the same magnitude order as c , the above approximation is no longer valid. You must use the Lorentz factor, gamma=1/root(1-v^2/c^2) . ( sorry for my lack of LaTex )

Galilean transforms are only accurate for low speeds. Lorentz transforms reduce to their Galilean counterparts when c is considered infinitely large compared to v .

Yes. Pile up enough photons ( they are bosons, so can be piled up ) to an adequate energy density, and you will produce a gravitational field strong enough to attract an electron.

Fortunately I had some very good teachers in high school ( and few really bad ones ). Two that stand out taught me Physics and Algebra. They didn't just teach me facts or techniques, but instilled in me a passion for learning, which is still strong almost 40 yrs later. You certainly wouldn't expect an Algebra teacher to explain why trees grow round, or how the pattern of leaves on a branch is related to the Fibonacci sequence. Or a physics teacher whose first question, in the first class of the Gr 10 year was " Are you moving ? ". To which I was the only one to reply " Relative to what ? "

It seems those bastards are now targeting Europe, and especially Britain, instead of America. I offer my sympathy and support.

You may be tired of it iNow, but unfortunately a great multitude of people are not. They hang on their every word: Why are publications/sites like Daily Mail so popular ? Hell, the ( so called ) President IS a media personality ! Idiots like C Giffen ( and T Nugent ) should be condemned by everyone, before the even bigger idiots, who get their 'news' from the likes of Daily Mail, are spurred on to take things even farther.

Really ? The 'they did it so we can also' defense ? I thought the whole point was to prove that we're not idiots like T Nugent. Should we not strive to be better, set an example, and not stoop to their level ? Giffin's video is at the ISIL terrorist level. I wonder how friends and family of decapitated journalists and others feel, when seeing the level of what passes for political discourse these days.

Would anyone care to comment on the propriety ( or vice versa ) of Cathy Griffin's photo shoot with the images of a beheaded President ? And now she is doubling down, claiming that the repercussions ( of her actions ) are ruining her life. Typical Hollywood; They are allowed to do whatever they want and protest whoever they want, but no one else should have the rights to protest their actions ? This has very little to do with the president ( and his incompetence ), but has the media pushed too far in encouraging this sort of behavior ? Is it now accepted behavior because D Trump 'deserves it' ?

You are absolutely right... " a lot of confusion can be generated when trying to explain something that doesn't exist "

!5000 yrs ago the glaciers over North America went as far South as the Ohio valley. By 12000 yrs ago they were quickly retreating North, carving out the Great Lakes system.. Could that have contributed to the rise in sea levels ? Melting floating ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Melting ice over land does. So while melting the ice cover of Antarctica would raise sea levels considerably, melting The Arctic ice would not.

I would think the economic indicators relate more closely with the periods/times of those hundred days, and the historical circumstances. Probably not ( solely ) related to the President in office at the time, Lord Antares. You would probably find not too dissimilar indicators for Canada during the same periods

The graviton is the mediator boson in a QUANTUM field theory of gravity. We don't have a quantum field theory of gravity yet ! ( but everyone expects there to be one eventually ) As for space-time ( or even fields ) 'flowing', I'm of the opinion that you can probably construct a model including such 'flows' as space-time is a mathematical construct. But what would be the point; it would make the exact same predictions, yet be much more complex. So, no, nothing is flowing into masses, but if you want to construct a mathematical model, go ahead and knock yourself out. ( but I suggest you study GR first, the going is much simpler )

I liked your simple explanation that, while science teaches us how to analyze the problem at hand, philosophy teaches us how to think about the problem at hand. Which sometimes guides the scientific analysis. I.E. it is not a useless discipline, but can be quite useful, if applied in the right situations.

You haven't yet, Eise. As to philosophy... I used to think it was a useless discipline, and so, by extension, people who practiced it, did nothing useful. Does that clarify things ?

Absolutely. The best theory we have for gravity, GR, models it as a warping ( or curvature if you will ) of the 4 dimensional co-ordinate system ( or metric if you will ). Does space-time ( if that exists other than as a mathematical concept ) actually warp or curve ? No-one knows., and very few people care. As this model allows us to make extremely accurate predictions in the circumstances where it is valid.

Never had much use/respect for philosophy or philosophers until Eise joined us. Glad you're here.

I stand corrected.

It is not my opinion or choice. By definition faith and belief do not require confirmation or evidence. And, by definition, science does. Don't apply the requirements of one to the other.