MigL

Sorry if I miscommunicated my intent, Imatfaal, I assure you it wasn't directed at your previous post. I am offended at your calling it 'reactionary rubbish' though. I realize the issue of discussion in any mayor's office, of a city where someone is killed by a police officer, should be the unfortunate death of a citizen. But don't you think, in a case where its a black citizen that's been killed, discussions between the mayor and DA's office turn to " How can we avoid a riot " ? And, if everyone argued the same side, there would be no discussion, would there ?

Further to Mordred's and AJB's responses, the gravitons are not 'emitted' by the planet in your equivalence scenario. Rather they are a manifestation of a gravitational quantum field ( for which we don't have a working theory ). And the equivalence principle states that the two elevators in your idealized scenario would experience the same space-time curvature, hence the same bosons.

Its a shame its gotten to this point. And I'm not sure this is happening, just an impression I get since none of us are actually looking at the case details. That after so many years ( generations ) of abuse and killings of black Americans by police, we all think its a good idea if justice is bent the opposite way. We are all willing to see this cop prosecuted 'extra vigorously' ( whatever that means ) without even knowing the facts regarding this case. Is the state ( DA's office ) simply implementing the citizens' 'lynch mob' mentality because they are afraid of the repercussions ? I hope the scales of justice aren't being weighed on the opposite side to make up for past ( and continuing ) injustice against black Americans. I really don't think the equivalent of affirmative action should apply to justice

And while some, like iNow and waitforufo, commendably strive to find common grounds for discussion, others are happy slinging mud at their neighbours.

Definitely young people should be encouraged to inform themselves of the issues of the day or of an election. Then if they're passionate ( or enraged ) by one or more issues they'll be likely to go and cast a vote accordingly. But to simply encourage them ( without having done the required research into the issues ) to go out and cast their vote is probably reckless. Most municipal elections are decided in just this way. No one cares enough about the issues that affect them even more than state/province wide elections presidential/federal elections, yet they go vote anyway. Usually just basing their vote on name recognition. And you have municipal politicians serving for a quarter century, having never done squat for the dummies that keep re-electing them. As for D. Trump... I am hoping his support can be attributed to conservative minded people who are opposed to the direction the Republican party has taken as of late, and simply wish to register an 'anti-establishment' vote. These are the conservatives that could very easily be swayed to vote Democrat. And Clinton and Sanders should be targeting those people ( though I think Clinton would have more success ). Trump could turn out to be a gift for the Democrats, and the beginning of the end for Republicans as we now know them.

No, I'm saying it shouldn't be ( but it is ) a 'winner take all" contest. The president should represent ALL people, not just those that support him/her. As for FDR, Lincoln and Johnson, I'm of the opinion that things are better for some groups today than they were. I'm not implying rolling anything back, phi, and give credit where credit is due. But the biggest obstacle seems ( to me anyway ) to be that presidents cannot achieve the change they promise because of opposition. Obama certainly didn't fail at many of his promises for lack of trying. B. Sanders will certainly have the support of most liberals across the US, but very few conservatives. H. Clinton will have the support of most liberals, but also a fair percentage of reasonable conservatives. One will have support of approx. 50% of the populace, the other could have up to 75%. Who do you think will have less opposition to implementing their agenda ? Now if you think like Overtone, and claim she's as bad as Republicans, then you've admitted the Democrats have their own wingnuts. Its a matter of Sanders not being able to achieve a lot of his 'lofty' goals, and Clinton being able to achieve most of her somewhat less ambitious goals, Willie.

I think only your third point about the influence of wealth on politics is accurate, iNow. If you're not willing to live up to your obligations you have no right to complain about the outcome. And I personally don't see the point of the 'big push' everytime there's an election coming, to get disenfranchised/ disinterested/ young people out to vote. If they have no interest in voting, they have even less interest in educating themselves as to the issues. And a vote based on popularity, polls, looks, personal wealth, etc., can actually 'waste' two votes. ( that being said they have every right to that vote, I just not willing to be an enabler )

The wingnuts hate everybody, Overtone, but a moderate conservative ( like Tar ? ) could put up with H. Clinton. Political polarization based in ideology, not issues, is higher than its ever been. Its time to try and reverse that trend. And since you're always bringing up past presidents, and how rosy things were under their watch, please tell me... How good did black Americans have it under FDR, Lincoln or even Johnson ? How about the civil rights of oriental Americans during WW2 ? How about the unionizing efforts of the Irish and Italians during the first half of the century ? Or are you just talking about the 'nice things' for 'real' Americans ? If you're willing to marginalize a portion of the American populace so the rest can have nice things, if you're willing to spew hate and fear based solely on a liberal or conservative ideology, then Donald Trump has a position for you as his campaign manager.

The way I see it ( as if anyone cares ), American liberals are roughly split on a Clinton or Sanders presidency. American conservatives on the other hand, want the change Trump represents, but don't really want Trump ( and couldn't care less about the other Republicans ). The conservatives may just decide to vote Democrat. But which of the two can they stomach ? We have on this forum, a couple of conservative leaning individuals. Certainly not fanatics but rather moderate conservatives. And do you recall Tar calling B. Sanders a commie? If even moderate conservatives have that impression of him ( justified or not ), do you think they would rally behind him ? I don't think so. But they may find H. Clinton more palatable ( and certainly safer than having Trump in the White House ). If she can pull some conservative support as well as liberal, she has areal shot at being able to work with both sides. The best presidents represent all ( or at least most ) of the populace, not just the half that voted for them. And real change only comes about when ( almost ) everyone is on-board.

Agree with you, but, just to play devil's advocate... Say one observer accelerating upwards at 1g is in an enclosed box, and similarly, the second observer is suspended in a 1g gravitational field is also in a box. What experiments could they do to determine who is accelerating ? If they each drop a ball and measure its behavior will there be any difference other than negligible tidal effects ? Isn't this the thought experiment that led to the equivalence principle ? What Takenitseriously fails to address is that, equating the accelerating expansion due to dark energy, to being at 'rest' ( i.e. not in free fall ) in a 'universal' gravity field, implies a center to the universe. And its not that kind of expansion.

Ammonium Nitrate is not explosive. It is an oxidizer,and only explosive when combined with reducing fuel. It is usually used as a fertilizer. And I hardly ever see seedlings blowing up.

I think you could say the same thing for D. Trump supporters, Moontanman. They are also tired of 'business as usual' government, want change and their dignity back. ( unfortunately they are being lied to by a narcissistic wingnut ) B. Sanders may have all the 'right' promises, but roughly half the voting conservative population isn't going to believe him. Unless Republicans are forced to by losing power, or by getting on board with the changes, I don't see major changes happening anytime soon. And, I think, they are more likely to get on board with the changes with an H. Clinton presidency.

Swansont is absolutely right. Just as D. Trump doesn't have a chance of being able to work with Democrats, let alone his own party, if he gets the nod, neither will B. Sanders be able to work with Republicans. And as B. Obama has found out, you need to be able to work with the opposition to affect real change. Good intentions, apparently just don't cut it. H. Clinton, on the other hand, has some conservative wiewpoints, as Overtone likes to point out, so she may be in a better position to affect change by working with the opposition instead of the Republicans opposing her every move on ideological grounds. I.E. the US may finally get a workable, universal health care system.

I agree with Robbitybob, that wing is too saucy. I like mine a little drier. But seriously, of course it has a general direction, because it occurs as a result of environmental forcing in that direction. That being said, there are countless environmental forces, with different weights, directions and localization. Also as a population becomes advanced enough to modify some of those forces ( ambient temperature is a force modified by clothing, or central heating ), it leads to wider diversification within that population ( some people are hairy, almost furry, and some have very little bodily hair ). And some times it can eliminate that force altogether, minimizing any movement in the direction of that particular forcing ( except for the random factor ).

I think I see where he's trying to go... Consider two observers, one in free fall, and another suspended at a certain height above a planet. As they pass each other, one observer sees the other accelerating downwards at 1g, while the other sees the first accelerating upwards at 1g. I don't see how the two are equivalent since, as AJB has pointed out, the suspended observer is experiencing a force ( he has weight does he not ? ). And as AJB has also pointed out, this effect is only local, i.e. if you increase the separation between observers, you start to note tidal effects such that the acceleration vectors would no longer be opposite but parallel, but wold have an angle, or tangential component.

I don't understand why you think you need a 'tactic' to participate in a discussion, Gees. This is not a contest to be won or lost. It is an opportunity to present your ideas and learn from others' ideas. You should feel at ease, like you would with friends or class-mates These guys are not a 'pack of wolves', but people who devote their time to helping others sort out their thoughts. You can bounce you ideas off them, and if they can, they'll steer you in the right direction. Hopefully, they'll learn something from you also, Gees. That's what a discussion is.

Maybe for cutting, but not for pricking, Studiot. ( sorry, that sounds even 'dirtier' )

Oh, I thought it was the cheap booze. But seriously, sure there are myriad other factors, but the US is still the land of opportunity. I love Canada, but I've visited the US many times before my passport expired ( I remember only needing a driver's licence ) and I'd have no trouble whatsoever living in the US. Some things are different, but the people are very much alike. It has a long way to fall before it becomes a third world country. And sure, there is a huge wealth disparity. But the wealth disparity of the 330 million Americans isn't even comparable to the wealth disparity of 1.6 billion Chinese where the largest number of billionaires can be found, along with the largest number of people living on $5 per day ( Its GINI index surpassed the US in 2014, but it affects 5x as many people ). When are we gonna have an OP about China's record and its status as a third world country ? ( i.e. when do we stop picking on the US )

Maybe one of those people on Sciforums was telekinetic. ( now that's humor ) This is anecdotal and solely based on observation, but cancer patients who have a positive outlook, i.e. a belief that everything will be fine, usually last a lot longer than those who lose all hope and resign themselves to death. And even if not supported by evidence, at least they have a better time in their remaining life. I would add that prayer and religion provide something that the dry facts of science do not... They provide hope. And now I'll do another movie quote for which Phi will give me grief... "Hope is a good thing, Maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies" Andy. But can you guess the movie ? 0

Pressure is defined as force per unit area. Higher pressure makes penetration easier. ( sorry, that sounds 'dirty' )

IIRC in GR energy conservation is analyzed by considering a bounded area of space-time and examining the energy flux in/out of the boundary. This is obviously only possible locally. The global option does not exist since there is no boundary. So the model, GR, has this 'deficiency'' incorporated into it. Is it any wonder that Big Bang Theory, based also on this GR model, has the same 'deficiency' ? Personally I will go on believing that energy conservation holds. We just don't have a handle on it yet.

No they usually go across on boats or the railroad bridge. ( you'd have to be pretty brave to attempt coming back across the railway bridge, over the Niagara Gorge, after getting drunk on cheap ( our booze is taxed to death ) American liquor and beer. So they must be planning to stay. ) And sure, I agree Willie, the US is still seen as a land of opportunity to the rest of the World.

Just going by local news reports. I live in the Niagara region, with three border towns. A pretty nice area. And the other side is Niagara Falls and Buffalo, New York. Niagara falls especially is pretty grim. All boarded up. No jobs. No businesses.

I like that last part about H. Clinton. Maybe once she's elected, he'll be able to work with her. One of our Canadian politicians once said... "Elections are not the time to discuss important issues" ( implying its time for bluster, posturing and LIES ) It cost K. Campbell the election.

I have a simple question for Willie from a fellow Canadian... If Canada is such a better place than the US. Or alternately, if the US is becoming 'third world' compared to us Canadians "'turning it around'. Why do so many immigrants that come to Canada get cought trying to sneak into the US ? Hardly any from the US get cought sneaking into Canada. ( and its not because of our incompetent border security )