MigL

Unfortunately there's always plenty of idiocy to go around, DrP. On both sides of the Atlantic, apparently. I say the vote is binding. Immediately eliminate England, Wales and both Irish teams from the Euro Cup competition. ( just kidding, but seriously, England needs to get rid of R. Hodgson. that guy is brutal. Is he picking his starters by drawing names out of a hat ? ) And while we're on the subject of football ( soccer ), just to show how far-reaching the consequences of the Brexit decision are... European teams are only allowed so many non--EU players. G. Bale has now become a non-EU player, so Real Madrid has too many, and will need to adjust their roster accordingly.

Good olive oil ?

This is the last time you Brits get to tell Americans that they're voting with emotion and not their intellect.

Oh-Oh! Does that mean we're in for another symmetry break. That could hurt !

So, assume all the past symmetry breaks were at 'false' zero vacuum energy levels ( that is why they were unstable and spontaneously broke ), Mike. And we are now at the 'real' zero vacuum energy level. But it has a certain magnitude ( it is not actually zero ). However, EM is a gauge field, so you have no way of measuring the absolute magnitude at each co-ordinate. Like a bird on a 9000v wire, all you measure is zero, and all other measurements are 'relative' to that baseline. If there was a way to measure the absolute potentials at each co-ordinate, one might be able to sum over all fields, and get a value for vacuum energy, and a reasonable value for the Cosmological constant. ( the method I've seen uses harmonic oscillators at every co-ordinate, with suitable boundary conditions, but gets a value 120 orders of magnitude too large )

You're right Phi. Both sabot and flechette came to mind and since I couldn't remember which was which, I picked the more 'formidable' sounding one. Damn those foreign languages ! Oh wait, French is supposed to be my second language. ( studied French for 7 yrs )

Armor piercing rounds aren't designed for the whole shell to pierce. They usually have a thin central projectile ( sabot in French ) which does the actual piercing and then fragments and sparks up anything inside the tank ( for example ), as John mentioned. All I remember about Ti ( from Gr 13 Chemistry ) is that it burns in an N2 atmosphere.

Mike, forget about the CMB, it is just confusing you. Focus on the simple explanation Mordred gave you. A field is a value we assign to a certain co-ordinate in our model. Classically this value was modified by particles ( charged ), but Quantum field theory turns this on its head, such that the modified field values are the quantum particle. Keep in mind that these are both models with different areas of applicability; And the following is more opinion than accepted science... You may ask , where did this field value that's assigned to each co-ordinate come from; But then you'd get an answer concerning the last symmetry break that happened a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, in this domain. Before that, co-ordinates would have had different values of different ( combination ? ) fields. We can extrapolate this all the way back to t=0, where the potential/time graph of the universe is at the top of a Gaussian curve, but with 'ledges' along the way down. One field value for each co-ordinate, but extremely unstable. The universe rolls off the peak of the curve and expands until it comes to rest on the first ledge. This is the first symmetry break, and the original single field decouples into two ( or more ). The number of symmetry breaks that follow, and associated 'ledges' varies according to group theory model being used, but it always results in lower potential, expansion ( more gradual each time ) and more de-coupled fields.

I wasn't trying to dilute the seriousness of the gun problem, iNow. Simply pointing out that drinking and driving is also a problem , in response to another members post.

You see what you started ?

Oh, I don't know... In 2014 nearly 10000 people died in alcohol related traffic incidents. I wonder how many more died in alcohol related GUN incidents ? ( and which column would you put those under )

It used to be a common idea that a wave has to wave 'something', i.e. it needs a medium. However the model we use, relativity, doesn't require a medium. It also demands that there is no absolute reference frame. And since the medium would provide an absolute reference frame against which motion could be judged, a medium is not only not required, but actually forbidden. We'd have to get rid of relativity to make you happy, Mike. And, although we all like you, that's not gonna happen.

Just to be controversial... How about "limiting the volume of drugs floating around our country like Skittles or allowing people with known predisposition to addictive behavior to purchase them without restriction" ? Do you think that would work ? Has it worked ?

As StringJunky said, Mike, physicists build models, almost invariably mathematical models. These models then, allow them to make certain predictions about the behavior of the system being modeled. These predictions are then tested against experimental evidence and observation, to judge the validity of the model. Sometimes the model is valid ( agrees with observation/experiment ) under certain circumstances, but leads to inconsistencies in others. A perfect example is GR's indication of a singularity of infinite density central to a Black Hole. This anomaly indicates that GR is invalid under those circumstances, and points to the need for Quantum Gravity. The gas laws, and Hydrodynamics, that we have as models allow us to predict the behavior of air and water under most circumstances, but they also need modification under certain conditions ( compressible vs. incompressible flows ) or they are invalid.

I can only dream of being as 'lost' as AJB.

Well, let me see... GR predicts a singularity central to a Black Hole of infinite density. Does anyone think that will ever be consistent with observation ? Elementary particles of zero dimension result in infinities at zero separation, of various field strengths. ( and are fudged away with a mathematical trick ) Does anyone think that's consistent with observation ? And I could go on... None of these implausible properties "debunk' anything. They just indicate that the model is not applicable in those circumstances. But we've already strayed far enough away form Moony's OP, so I concede. Thank you gentlemen.

Difference of opinion Swansont. No model is ever 100%. GR itself fails at certain limits. Do we throw it all away and say its debunked ? What happened to the aether was that a better model came along, which better fit observation and experiment, and so the aether model was discarded. Do you think that when we get a quantum theory of gravity, the GR model will be debunked, because it fails ( and may not agree with observations ) at certain limits ?

Good to see that people are finally realizing what an ass he is. There are no other Republicans who have a chance at the presidency. Maybe they'll take this opportunity to re-invent themselves.

Hmmm, no nations you say ? Well that would make the Euro Cup very boring ! Go Azzurri !! ( Italian national team )

Actually Mike, QED says the field is everywhere. That's what the universe consists of, fields, on fields, on more fields. The quantum particles that you think produce the field, are actually just manifestations, or 'lumps' if you will of their respective fields.

The operative words are 'theoretical' and 'physical evidence'. As in "THEORETICAL particles known as 'primitive semi-radius tachyons' are PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that the universe was created by a higher intelligence. How can something which is only theorized be physical proof ? Should he not wait until these particles are actually found before calling them proof of a controversial viewpoint ? Or is he just a publicity hound ?

I'd like to be known as 'T-bone'. Don't you think everyone on Earth should be asked if they'd like to refer to me as 'T-bone' ?

Gonna have to disagree with you also on this one Mike. In the 1800s EM was thought to require a medium, just like every other wave known at that point, and so a model was developed which involved a medium having some fantastic properties - such as a 'stiffness' which would support wave propagation at c, but offer no resistance to objects travelling through it. In 1905 , Einstein introduced relativity, and this new model has been used ever since, as it has proved extremely accurate. This new model does not require a medium for EM, as a matter of fact, it requires that there CANNOT be a medium. IOW there is no need for the aether ( medium ) anymore. So what presented evidence am I ignoring Swansont ?

And, before anyone gets the idea that I'm an aether supporter, far from it. Relativity renders it un-needed. But, just to get something straight, relativity is a model which does not need it. Similarily the aether is a model. They describe reality, where applicable. The aether model has outlived its usefulness ( if it ever had any ). I don't think in modern physics any model can be dismissed or 'debunked' simply because it is implausible. If that were the case, a lot of QM would be similarly 'debunked'.

Don't look at me... I've always referred to her as H. Clinton. And B.Sanders, B. Obama, D Trump, etc.