MigL

in-groups ? Cliques ? Am I back in high-school ? And more importantly, will there be a 'rumble' after class ? But seriously, of course swansont is biased. So is Phi, and every other moderator and member of this forum. Including you, Proximity1. We are, after all, human ( except Strange, he's an alien ) and our 'biases' are part of our character. And so we have this understanding... I won't point out their biases if they ignore mine.

" As a solution to our current and accumulating climate problem fusion isn't a viable option " WHY NOT ? The only source of 'renewable' energy available to us IS a fusion reactor. It is that bright ball in the sky 93 mil miles away.

Haven't researched Horava gravity, maybe one of the other members ( Mordred ? ) may have heard of it and can add some insight... If the electrons in graphene move slowly such that relativistic effects are negligible, that doesn't mean they are absent. And if they speed up to relativistic speeds these effects become more pronounced such that they can no longer be ignored, but Lorentz symmetry or covariance is in effect in both cases. That being said, the early universe underwent one or more symmetry breaks during the first fraction of a second as it rapidly cooled. During this symmetry break the Higgs mechanism allowed certain particles to modify one of their properties to one we call mass. Previously all particles were massless, and so moved at the speed Lorentz covariance dictates. But I don't see how the fact, that every particle was massless and moved at c, doesn't require Lorentz covariance.

I don't agree Ed. It is not intimidation or bullying. It simply makes it clear what the alternatives to peaceful, diplomatic negotiations are.

The most 'basic' jet engine is called a ram-jet. It uses the engine's forward motion to compress air, then combusts it with fuel to give it energy/momentum, and momentum conservation imparts additional forward motion to the engine. Anything added to this set up, like variable area and shock ramp inlets, multi stage compressors, annular/cannular combustion chambers, multi stage turbines, after-burning/re-heat, variable area exhaust or even low pressure bypass fan flow, only serve to increase efficiency and optimize the engine for a specific regime. I do have some books on the subject, mostly dealing with military turbojets and turbofans, but it would be a chore to find them. I would think the General Electric, Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce websites would have some information.

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.