MigL

I guess you're retired Ed. Still you'd better find something to do, you know what they say about 'idle hands'. Wouldn't want you getting into trouble. I find quoting Bill Gates strangely amusing. No-one would know the name of this school drop-out if Gary Kildall hadn't gone fishing that fateful weekend in 1980 when IBM came to buy an operating system for their first micro-computer.

I take my garlic with boiled or sautéed rapini and ev olive oil, as a side to chicken, or pork sausage. Not for medicinal purposes. I like the taste. P.S. lighten up people !

At first I thought he was asking if the universe is too complex for us to ever completely understand it. And that would be a valid question. But we already have a thread on that subject

You have two 'special' cases... One is where the test mass is moving directly towards the gravitating body. This obviously results in 'straight' motion to a collision. The second is where the test mass is moving tangentially to the gravitating body at exactly the right speed to result in a circular orbit. All other ( and there are infinitely more than these two 'special' cases ) gravitational interactions will result in elliptical orbits ( including parabolic and hyperbolic ), because of momentum conservation. Any initial speed ( i.e. momentum ) going in, is regained going out. And ALL are geodesic solutions.

And I'm just poking fun by taking it to an extreme. Seems to me, if people would 'lighten up' a little we wouldn't need to have this discussion to begin with.

What's up with all the female avatars ? When did this forum become a 'transvestite' forum ?

Oh, come on ! I was just getting used to Austin Powers !

You may also want to google J.A. Wheeler's concept of space-time at Planck scales. The 'quantum foam' is assumed to be composed of extremely tiny wormholes popping in and out of existence.

The 'simple' example I've often seen used is a thermodynamic one ( but it just seems more confusing to me ). You can, under suitable conditions, cool water to below 0 deg. and it will remain liquid. This is a 'false' energy level, and the smallest disturbance will cause it to flash-freeze and become a solid. This 'symmetry break' will cause the system to lose certain properties and gain others. The one I like to use is the drop of a pencil from a tabletop. It is conceivable that the pencil will land on its tip, perfectly balanced, and be in a rotationally symmetric state. This state, at a false zero energy level, is extremely unstable, however, and the slightest disturbance will cause it to fall over to its true zero energy state. This state has had its symmetry broken as the pencil now points in a particular direction and has lost rotational symmetry. I'm sure Mordred will also explain the 'Mexican hat' potential ( which looks like a rounded 'W' ), and the false vacuum energy would be perfectly balanced atop the middle hump of the 'hat', this would again be unstable and a symmetry break would cause a 'roll down' to the true zero state in the 'brim' of the 'hat'. Confused yet ? In all cases, a symmetry break is involved in the transition from a false zero state to the true zero state. The last one that occurred would be the electroweak symmetry break, which caused weak interaction bosons to gain mass, and separate from the EM interaction. I leave it up to you to try to figure out how our universe would work without a weak interaction. There may have been varying numbers of symmetry breaks before the electroweak break ( and group theory dictates how many ), but they are still trying to find the 'best fit' to what is observed in elementary particle physics. And that, of course, is incomplete and constantly changing ( thanks LHC ).

Well, your last post managed to offend the people of California and of Texas, Overtone. Who's next ? But at least the truth came out. You like R Reagan's quotes so much, you're trying to replace that book. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the air traffic controllers. They also took Ronnie seriously.

I would like to defend Shmengie's position with a timeline. Hubble discovers the red-shift problem in the 20s, well after Einstein's publication of GR. Big Bang nucleosynthesis wasn't realized until the 50s, and found to fit observations, by Gamow, Hoyle and others. The CMB was predicted in the early 50s ( by Gamow again ? ) and was later found/verified by Penzias and Wilson. I think Smengie is making the point that in the intervening 30 yrs, no other explanation for the red-shift, other than universal expansion was explored. He makes a valid point that a varying gravitational constant COULD account for the red-shift. But it was never investigated ( that I know of ). It would later turn out to be the wrong path, once corroborating evidence came in in the 50s, such as H, He, Li ratios and the CMB temperature. But this path seems to have been largely ignored from the 20s to the 50s, even though GR indicated this as a possible explanation for the red-shift. Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions, Smengie.

Appeasement means different things to different people/groups. The Mujahideen were 'freedom fighters' in the 80s, defending their country from Russian occupiers. ( not that I agree with what was done, but definitions are fluid ) And at one time Osama bin Laden was welcome anywhere in the US as a wealthy businessman. Please tell me that you realize that you can't apply modern day standards to long ago issues. ( for one thing, a lot of older literature would now be banned )

People who call themselves 'progressives' are always going on about establishing a dialogue with terrorists and assorted groups that proclaim themselves our enemies. They are after B. Obama to talk to the Cubans,Iranians, Syrians, the Taliban and even ISIL. Because that will facilitate understanding, they will come to know us for the wonderful people we are, and be our 'buddies'. Yet when R. Reagan tries to do this 30 odd yrs ago, he's a dick ?

Oh give it a rest Overtone. Trump is a buffoon, EVERYONE took Reagan seriously ( Russians, Lybians, Iranians, etc. ) ( yes, I'm back from vacation )

I have to address some thing Bells mentioned in post #44. He mentions how the governments of Europe have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the problems Muslims face, such as unemployment and lack of opportunities. Now I'm not that familiar with Europe and the situation after the massive influx of refugees, but I am familiar with the North American situation, where I would say Muslims face similar challenges. But Muslims aren't the only group that faces such challenges. African Americans, Mexican Americans and Native Americans face similar, if not more challenging disadvantages than a lot of Muslims do. Yet none of these groups feel the need to blow up public places and suicide themselves. Does anyone have any insight on what drives this group to these actions ? I can ALMOST understand it if your country is oppressed by an occupier, and you wish to wage a type of guerilla warfare against said occupier, but what would be the reasoning for terrorism against a civilian population of a country that has taken you and your family in as refugees ?

I remember spending over $500 on a Sony Betamax video tape machine. It lost the battle with VHS, then DVDs came along and now I mostly stream/download. Wasn't that a lot of wasted money ? Change happens. Either you adapt, or go the way of the Dodo.

No Phi, I don't equate EVERYTHING, as a matter of fact I've often stated that some Republican politicians are jackasses. What I do equate is the hatred that's displayed by you and Overtone towards not just Republican politicians, but conservatives in general, which is virtually half the population of the US. Just go back and re-read some of the posts that you and Overtone have made, and the kind of treatment you advocate for conservatives, or even non-aligned that you 'mistake' for conservatives. All I've tried to do is show that we can be better than people like D. Trump and some of the others who spew hate. That compassion, understanding and education are the 'high road'. But I'm not even an American, and even though what you guys do affects me greatly, I've no right to tell you guys how to behave. But its funny that you think I'm the damaged one.

" They want it their way, NEVER Obama's or Hillary's way, simply on moron principles that are about as childish and racist as you can get." And now you want it your way. So you're done compromising and you're gonna be just like them. Congratulations, you're becoming a Republican !

While your statement is evidently true, Phi, I don't see how a continuance of the 'loggerhead' between not only the two parties, but the whole American populace, serves in any way to bring about progress. What you seem to be saying is the right have had their way for so long, over the left, and the only way to fix it is by having the left subjugate the right for a period of time to 'correct' things. And its not so much the politicians that determine the political spectrum, Overtone, rather the 'comfoft level' or attitude of the voting populace. And as Willie seems to have pointed out ( intentionally or not ) the attitude/comfort of the voters ( and the political spectrum which suits them ) isn't just different in differing geopolitical areas, it also changes over time.

Black Holes don't suck. Light, and anything else for that matter, outside the event horizon goes on its merry way along the geodesic paths in spacetime defined by the BH's mass-energy.

" I don't get to make jokes, so nobody quoting me does either." You're right, maybe you should lighten up. I say, JOKINGLY !

Yes it was originally meant in jest. And the apology was for losing my 'cool'. ( I'm a meek, apologetic Canadian, eh ? ) NOT because there was anything wrong with my post for which I needed a scolding from Phi.

In response to your post #62, Overtone... ( bullsh*t ? really ? You hurt my feelings ) Sorry, but you guys still don't get it. There is NO absolute scale of left or right politics. Left or right of what ? The centre, and for that matter, the whole political spectrum, is not defined by Overtone ( sorry to burst your bubble, its not all about you ); its defined by the roughly 200 million Americans eligible to vote. If half are considered left leaning, and the other half right leaning, the common ground is by definition the centrist position, and also by definition, where the vast majority is most comfortable. Notice that the centrist position and the whole spectrum shifts for different countries according to their voters. The whole of Europe and Canada have their center and spectrum shifted left compared to the Americans'. But that doesn't matter, because they ( and I ) are not eligible to vote in the US. The only thing that matters is what the average American is comfortable with. So it matters only to you that B.. Sanders is actually a centrist ( and to most Europeans on this forum, and to Willie, and even me ), if the rest of average America thinks he's a 'leftist, Commie pinko'. I find it hard to believe that an obviously very intelligent person such as yourself, still hasn't figured out how democracy works.

Haven't looked into it any farther than your link, yet. Seems very interesting. Dark matter would by necessity, be very stable, or long-lived. I don't imagine this boson that's been found, is either. A more exciting prospect, in my mind anyway, would be that this is the first particle found of the supersymmetry group.

Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor here ? And maybe if you don't like people making assumptions about you, based solely on what you post, maybe you should refrain from making assumptions about others. Me ? Authoritarian ? I just like arguing both sides of an issue. Its usually helpful if you can see the other person's point of view. It leads to understanding !