MigL

Keep in mind that if a country should choose NOT to negotiate a peaceful settlement to a disagreement with the US ( or England, as Argentina did ), the arrival of a carrier battle group 200 mi from shore, is a powerful incentive.

One would assume the speed of sound in certain parts of a neutron star approaches c. The neutronium in these parts would be composed of degenerate neutrons, bonded together ( to a certain extent ) by residual strong force, vastly stronger and 'stiffer' than electromagnetic bonding of normal matter.

No drone will be able to project as much force as a floating city which can go anywhere in the world, strike any target and protect itself from retaliation with more aircraft than most medium sized air forces ( without need for AtA refueling like the British had to do with re-commissioned Vulcan bombers to the Falkland islands, before their carrier, equipped with Harriers, could get there ). They are the 'tactical' deterrent, as opposed to the nuclear one. The 'club' includes the US, Russia, China, England, France ,Italy, Spain, Brazil, and India ( may have missed one or two ).

Extremely high stiffness ?

Not sure if I'm understanding cor/rectly... You seem to be attaching a 'fixed' co-ordinate system ( ie an absolute frame ) to the universe and noticing changes as the universe expands. The co-ordinate system is the math that is 'modelling' the expansion. It is 'expanding' to model the actual expansion. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a good model. And of course, some models ( ie co-ordinate systems ) will work better than others, depending on the topology. Or have I totally mis-understood

Well, this was the most disappointing thread about the 'Ultimate Unifying Theory' ever.

Seems to work just fine on Star Trek. ( take away the reason to hurry that elevator, and people stop selfishly pushing both buttons )

Yes you did, Eise. You have always tempered philosophical discussions with enough 'real' science to make them palatable. Always look forward to reading your posts.

No, Mordred is right, Hawking Radiation increases as the BH shrinks because the 'temperature' of the BH increases. IIRC the Lorentz transforms were introduced in the late 1800s and were originally proposed as an explanation for the M-M experiment, long before Einstein's great year of 1905. These transforms were also used by Poincare, who came close to beating Einstein to Special Relativity; but it was Einstein who proposed the invariance of c to explain the application of the transforms.

Too many misconceptions about the strong force, Planck lengths and black holes. The proton and neutron are NOT fundamental ( like the electron ), but rather composite particles. Each is composed of three quarks, and that is what the strong force acts on. It is the 'residual' force ( still extremely strong ) which acts as a Yukawa exchange force to bind protons and neutrons in the nucleus.

Just to be clear... There was no initial mass. The property of mass was acquired by certain particles which interact with the Higgs field, itself a result of the symmetry breaks which separated the fundamental forces.

GR goes to more depth than Newtonian gravity and explains WHY there is an acceleration between the two masses. They are following curved space-time ! Gravity's plot is an asymptotic potential well which approaches zero at large distances. At these distances ( galactic cluster size ) the trivial negative gravitational potential is easily overcome by an also exceedingly small positive potential. It is this net positive potential which leads ti expansion at these distances. For all smaller distances, the gravitational potential is much greater, and the positive expansion potential is so negligible as to have no effect.

If we perform an experiment ( observation ) on a quantum particle to detect waves that IS what we detect. If we do an experiment on a quantum particle to detect particles that IS what we detect. But a quantum particle is both ( or neither ) as it is essentially a probability distribution. The particle or wave treatment are just models that are applied ( quite successfully ) for different circumstances.

Come to think of it, reading the rules is one of those things I've always meant to get to, but never have. I'll admit I've hijacked a couple of threads, and subsequently apologized. But I've always thought having a civil, informed discussion went a long way towards meeting any and all regulations this forum may have. I haven't been wrong, have I ? ( just below Clint, it says 0 warnings )

I'd have no problem paying a reasonable 'tax' to be a member. Its certainly been worth it. Just don't go electing D. Trump as a moderator !

Its often a case of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't'. America is always asked to intervene in conflicts around the world. If they see it as a 'no-win' situation, and stay out, they are vilified, called uncaring, and the accusation is levelled that its because of a 'lack of oil in the region'. If they do go in, accusations of 'colonialism' and serving their own interests are made, usually concerning steady oil supplies. Isn't world peace in the interest of every country ?

I'm not too familiar with the subject of the OP, having been away for a while, however I find some of the comments made by members that I respect, somewhat troubling. The comment " if you don't like the rules here, you are free to leave", has been made by at least three members who should know better. It is reminiscent of the 60s counter-protest " America, love it or leave it". Is there no scope or room for improvements to Science Forums ? And does wanting to improve it deserve banishment from this forum ? ( not that I'm implying the OP is trying to improve the forum ( having only skimmed through the previous 3 pages), but improvement by constructive criticism ) This forum is not great in and of itself, it is made great by the membership AND moderation. The fact that this thread has gone on this long seems to prove we're not close-minded, and will entertain constructive criticism.

Either or, makes little difference to the OP. The OP inquired about the equivalence ( ? ) between an observer revolving around a stationary electron, versus a spinning electron with a stationary observer. Aside from the fact that the revolving observer is undergoing acceleration and there can be no equivalence between the two cases, the notion of a spinning, POINT particle is non-sensical ( or at least ill-defined ). Swansont has already mentioned this a few times.

Other than petrification of bones, which tells us very little about soft tissue structure, there are also amber preserved specimen. Recently read about an amber sample bought at a market that contained a small dinosaur tail, completely covered in fine feathers. Not scales or leathery skin, but actual feathers, just like birds; finally putting to rest the dinosaur 'total extinction' myth. Don't recall where I read it, should be easy enough to look up, and may teach research skills to the kids.

Ignorance is not a valid defense in cases where a perpetrator SHOULD know that an offence/crime is being committed. I.E. killing, robbing, disobeying POSTED speed limits, etc. In matters of environmental law, at least in North America ( don't know about Europe ), ignorance can be a valid defense. If you are unaware of a specific regulation, as long as reasonable steps are taken with due diligence, you will not be charged for contravening said regulation.

I'm not defending the Harper conservatives but should I forgive the Liberal lies and promises that were made during the election campaign just because it became inconvenient to follow through with them after having been elected ? That IS the reason people voted for them. And that is the sort of thing, which at first generates contempt for politicians/elections and results in low voter turn-out, and eventually in protest votes ( which is what I assume happened in the US ) leading to the election of buffoons like D. Trump.

Come on Phi, now you're being ridiculous. The real 'filth' ( like the KKK ) was always there whether Trump or Obama is/was President. By characterizing all the people who voted for Trump as 'filth', you're making the same mistake Clinton made. How did it work out for her ? A lot, if not most, of the voters who supported Trump are just sick and tired of the government ignoring them. Government only ever seems to care for the top 20% ( their rich friends ) and the bottom 20% ( the people they have to support through social programs ). The ever shrinking middle class has no voice, they are just expected to pay the bill. I think they got fed up, and voted for a change from 'business-as-usual' Government that a career politician like Clinton represents. The fact that they chose Trump to do this with is what is troubling, because he is the one who has enabled the real 'filth'. Most of his supporters are, however decent, hard-working people who pay their taxes and get along with their neighbors ( black or white ). I don't know much about American politics since I predicted that Trump would never become president, but I think we're due for a 'Trump' in Canada soon. We may be a lot more malleable than you Americans but I can see us reaching our snapping point also. Our Conservative government was replaced by the Trudeau Liberals recently. Trudeau campaigned on legalizing pot. That has gone nowhere. Trudeau vilified the Harper Conservatives for their weak carbon reduction targets. The same targets he has now adopted. They campaigned against the F-35 purchase even though the previous Chretien Liberals had joined the program as a partner and gained considerable industrial work. They said it was a sole source contract with hidden costs. They pledged an open and transparent competition, yet they just ordered F18 SuperHornets without a competition and unknown costs ( maybe more than F-35 ). If they had an open competition the F-35 would win and Trudeau would look bad. Can't have that. They campaigned on replacing our first-past-the-post system with proportional representation so that people would be better represented by their government, but on winning a majority those plans were scrapped. I could go on, but you get the idea. Government as usual is not about making things better, but about getting re-elected. Promise anything to get elected and then do what's convenient. That's the problem with government-as-usual. You Americans have simply reached your breaking point quicker than we have, and unfortunately, made a deal with the devil ( Trump ) to that end.

Zero point energy may be the source of such things like virtual particles ( borrowed energy ), but the effect is not reproducible ( probabilistic ) so, can you really say it is 'caused' ? Sometimes you get effect A, sometimes you get effect B, and there is even a slim chance of getting effect C, D, E... That is not the standard definition of cause, Mordred.

The story that really had an impact on me when I was in my early teens was Golding's Lord of the Flies. I didn't think we ( adolescents ) could be such little pri*ks.

Loved Animal Farm ( @ 14 yrs age, 1974 ). Didn't much care for 1984. It became 'dated' and irrelevant in 1985.