MigL

No, what Canada had was a Prime Minister who was his own worst enemy. He was a bit of a control freak and had no personality. As a result he was despised by the media and they cut him no slack. Our current Prime Minister is young, photogenic, has nice hair, and takes 'selfies' with the populace every chance he gets. In short, he's a media darling. So they cut him all the slack he needs even though, contrary to what he promised during the election, he's adopted all of S Harpers' environmental policies and reduction targets. The Liberal government previous to S Harper, also did absolutely nothing about climate change over 11 yrs, despite signing us up at Kyoto. Not to mention P Martin, the Finance Minister under J Chretien, and owner of the Liberian registered Canada Steamship Lines ( to avoid Canadian taxes ), who made the biggest cuts to Health care ( 50% down to 16% federal transfer to Ontario ), yet M Harris, Conservative Ontario Premier at the time, is still vilified for it to this day. That being said, this is in no way a defense of people appointed by D Trump's White House.

'To be fair to M Thatcher, if you take her comments out of context, she sounds awful, but if you read the whole transcript it doesn't sound so bad. " its our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbor" "there is no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation" Certainly doesn't sound like " its all about me; everyone else can go F themselves" when you read the whole thing, does it ? Good or bad ( a lot of different viewpoints ) she was one of the most influential people in British government since the 50s. And much better than the useless British politicians that have followed. As to this human condition where we try to better ourselves by bringing others down; it is almost instinctive, and certainly not political. But I wonder how 'old money', rich people, who have inherited their wealth, would feel about including winners of the genetic lottery in the group denied free coverage ?

The workings of greenhouse gases... The Sun emits radiation, some of which strikes the Earth, centered in the visible light spectrum, because it acts like a black body of approx. 5500 deg. The radiation which strikes the Earth is absorbed by atmosphere, seas and land. Lower frequencies are absorbed by vibrating intramolecular bonds and higher ones by atomic orbital electrons possibly resulting in bond dissociation. Obviously when this absorbed radiation is re--emitted some of it is sent back into space. Ozone apparently provides this sort of shielding for UV radiation by dissociating O2 bonds. The radiation that reaches the seas and land masses is also re-radiated, but since the Earth's black body spectrum is centered on a much lower temperature, the infrared range, it is absorbed by intramolecular bonds. Water, methane and CO2 are very efficient low infrared absorbers in the atnosphere. And just like before when this radiation is re-emitted, some of it goes back towards the source. But while CO2 absorbs very little of the Sun's incident radiation and so, re-emits an even smaller portion back into space, CO2 absorbs a lot of the infrared emitted by the Earth and re-emits a good portion back towards the Earth. Green house gases, in effect, provide a shield for the Earth's re-emitted radiation, keeping it from cooling. It is this sort of 'double baking' that accounts for the greenhouse gas effect, not latent, or other, heat. ( incidentally, my credentials are stated in my profile and enough information is provided should you wish to check, but I did find that exchange humorous )

What are the chances that he gets tired of trying to ram through EOs, and up and quits with a bruised ego before his 4 yrs are up ? I really don't think he ever thought he'd get this far.

Where in the rules does it say I have to respond to every part of iNow's post, Hyper ? I responded to the part that concerned me, his admitted 'harshness' to another member. He sees it yet you double down and call my post inappropriate. Maybe you should report me. Maybe that's why I have a lot of respect for iNow's opinions and slowly losing respect for yours. And if I've unknowingly done/said anything to offend you, PM me and we can discuss it like adults.

Considering that the accretion disk of a galactic center, active BH can produce enough energy to outshine its parent galaxy, I would assume collisions can produce Higgs and even much more massive particles. What exactly would be accelerating the accretion disc 'outwards' ?

Kind of hard to explain theories at the leading edge of theoretical Physics in simple terms, especially since we don't know what your level of understanding is. I would suggest a Google search of 'Elementary String Theory'. Wiki seems to have a decent non-mathematical explanation of string and superstring theory. Give it a read and if you have any questions, come back and ask. If we can, we'll be more than happy to help.

Further, temperature is a measure of inter and intramolecular vibrations. A microwave generates radiation at a frequency specific to the intramolecular bonds of water, causing them to vibrate more energetically. In effect it heats the moisture in your food, boiling it from the inside. That's why you can't 'char' your food in a microwave, no matter how hot you get it.

Have to agree with Swansont and DrP... Gravitational collapse is completely symmetrical ( see the 'no hair' theory as it relates to BHs ) so any and all radiation due to collapse is completely symmetrical or omnidirectional. This happens very quickly so omnidirectional bursts are short-lived. Once the BH has formed any further infalling material follows a spiral trajectory. and this energetic angular acceleration of the EXTERNAL infalling material causes the polar radiation jets. These polar 'bursts' last as long as there is infalling material and the very large BHs at the center of young galaxies which display such jets are quasars.

Well, I was going to try to explain how iNow had been uncivil to Alfred00i1, but he did quite well on his own. The fact that someone disagrees about some small aspect ( like a definition ) of gay marriage does no automatically make them a bigot. That being said, I understand iNow is passionate about some topics, and I value his opinions, but not when they concern another member's character. And Hyper, it would help if you read the posts ( #51 ) ; I never claimed iNow's response to me was uncivil. I called him out for his response to Alfred001 in post #51. So please tell me how that was inappropriate ?

Funny how people who 'label' themselves progressive and tolerant are always the first to start tossing around words like clueless, bigoted and ignorant. Not to mention implying a person who holds dissimilar views buys women, is ignorant of history, has selective blindness and thinks gay marriage is a perversion. Give it a rest, iNow. and try to have a civil discussion. This is after all, a discussion forum; should we not be discussing these topics ? Or is parroting your world view only allowed.

Electroweak mediating particles were all massless like the photon, and so, moved at c. The symmetry break, through the Higgs mechanism, allowed some of these mediating particles ( the W and Z )to acquire mass and so are limited to sub-luminal speeds for the Weak interaction. The photon, mediating EM interactions, on the other hand, remains massless. This has a big difference in interaction ranges. While EM is not limited, Special Relativity and Heisenberg Uncertainty limit the effective range of the Weak interaction ( mediating particles can only get so far in the time allotted to virtual particles ).

Did not know that about the rice. Thanks CharonY. The point I was trying to make, though, is that even if its old dead fish in a supermarket, and no longer swims in the ocean, you can still make sushi. But you can never make sushi out of chicken ( even if you put the chicken in water ). ( I'll stop now and go have some left-overs before I get carried away with this sushi thing )

Holographic 'models' means that reality ( whatever that is ), in some circumstances, acts like a holograph, In GR, in some circumstances, it acts like a warped/curved co-ordinate system. In QM, sometimes it acts like waves, sometimes like particles. Etc. etc. ...

I don't know about an infinite ( in extent ? ) vacuum. but a non-zero vacuum energy is a requirement for quantum fluctuations. ( as well as a requirement for QM in general ) That would give the initial conditions, but at some point, pressure conditions have to favor inflation for expansion to take off. Otherwise the fluctuation just 'settles' again. And there are countless quantum fluctuations occurring all around you. I think you'd notice if a new universe started expanding in your pocket.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what they call it. But iNow asked for secular differences, and he was provided with them. By definition, it takes a man and a woman to procreate, i.e. start a family. And that is the original intent of marriage. Not to receive government subsidies/benefits. As to infertile couples not being married, should sushi made from a supermarket be called differently, because its not made with fish that swim in the sea ? I would think that as long as it has fish in it, no matter the circumstances of the fish, it is sushi. Similarly with marriage. As long as the required ingredients to procreate, a man and a woman, are there, it is a marriage. If we also choose to call a gay union a marriage, I don't have a problem with that either. It is, after all, just a definition. edit ( sorry about my train of thought, I had sushi for lunch )

I'm clueless ? Does not marriage STILL provide the majority of procreation by our species ? So if a government wants to encourage that, it would naturally favor marriage between people who can procreate. Got a clue yet ?

I happen to agree with you 100% DrmDoc. I made the same observations about a month ago and got pilloried. Everything from being a 'Trumpet' supporter to suppressing women's rights to protest. A large majority of H Clinton's problems were caused by herself and the DNC. D Trump's campaign is not smart enough to engineer the win, it was a protest vote that handed them the win. Its too bad the American people decided to make the protest with such a stupid and ridiculous candidate as D Trump.

Biology is indeed a secular difference, iNow. And there is something relevant to the institution of marriage that people of opposite sex can do that people of same sex cannot. They can procreate !! ( really didn't think I'd need to point that out ) And, again, if society deems that a worthwhile goal, then there are added incentives towards that end. ( although the need and willingness to adopt is commendable and should be encouraged among gay couples )

If space-time can be considered a field, then quantizing it will lead to quantum particles as 'excitations' of the field according to QFT. These particles would not be pieces of the field , or pieces of space-time as you say, but are a manifestation of the field.

Oh I agree, having two loving parents of any kind, is better than two heterosexual crackheads as parents. Heck, no parents would be better in that situation. But, the government also gives child benefits to people who have no business being parents, or marriage benefits to people who cannot stay faithfully married. So it basically looks at the ideal situations, not realistic ones. I guess what I'm driving at is, should a government/society have the right to discriminate against certain groups to the benefit of others in order to 'engineer' the kind of society it wishes to be ? ( or is this off topic ? )

Zapatos makes the point in post #18, that societies, through government and laws, tries to encourage behavior which is beneficial to that society. He cites mortgages to encourage home buying, marriage benefits to encourage the nuclear family, and others I could add like children's benefits to encourage child bearing, etc. If we all agree ( or do we ???) that the best environment for children's development is the one mother/one father family, with others such as same sex parents, or single parent, or even no parent, getting worse and worse, does society then, have the right to give an advantage to that kind of family ? And as a result, is this equality for gay marriages making things worse for children ? ( it took a while, but that's what I was getting at , Zapatos )

There are relationships which are not sexual in nature, Zapatos. Why aren't equivalent rights accorded to them also ?

Co-habitation for a period of time is equivalent to marriage in Canada. If you live as husband and wife, even if not officially married, you are granted all benefits while living, in 'divorce' and as a survivor. Being 'married' has little to do with it.

Thanks guys.