MigL

The mind is powerful. Believing something can affect you will usually help achieve that effect. This works for things like headaches, muscle pains, etc. All injuries which are realized by your mind. It does not work for things like the loss of a limb. No amount of wishful thinking, or prayer, will restore that limb. So don't be a fool; Go see your doctor for any problems. ( as Conan the Barbarian used to say of his god, "Crom helps those who help themselves" )

My understanding of magnetic monopoles comes from Alan Guth's early work which led to inflationary theory. In GUT they are basically a 'defect' in U(1) gauge theory and are most likely to be created at the boundaries or 'domain walls' of symmetry breaks. They would be a massive particle, and since we can't see any domain walls of our current universe, I doubt any monopoles would have reached us. That is, IF they exist.

The 'rubber sheet' analogy is a reduced dimensionality representation of space-time, Robittybob. The sheet itself , in fact, represents space-time. All motion is constrained to the 'sheet'. How could it not be ? There is no outside or inside it. And there is no tearing through it. ( disregarding singularities for the moment, as the model cannot handle them )

From the previously mentioned textbook by P.J.E. Peebles ( fairly intense math/GR )... pg. 139 in the chapter THE THERMAL CBR : Blackbody Radiation in an Expanding Universe, he deals with the 'paradox' of the NET radiation density DECREASING as the universe expands. The resolution he draws from the math is the quote I provided in my previous post. an excellent book. If you can find it, give it a read.

I've lost sight in my left eye, and have severe 'cupping' of the optic nerve in my right eye because of PDS glaucoma. My field and corrected vision are still good enough to allow me to drive, although night time/bad weather is a real adventure. The damage, due to pressure, is actually to the cells where the optic nerve makes a bend to meet up with the retina. It would be nice to have a 'restorative' treatment as opposed to treatment which just tries to keep the condition in check.

The problem seems to be that," while energy conservation is a good local concept, and can be defined more generally in the special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space, there is not a general global energy conservation law in GR theory." Principles of Physical Cosmology, P.J.E. Peebles '

If you get stopped by a police officer in the US, Ophiolite, and you have that 'smart-ass' attitude, you're liable to 'spend the night' or get a beat-down ( or both ). I used to party in New York state in my younger days and State troopers don't really appreciate humor. They will draw a gun for a traffic stop !

I ( unlike some of the others ) have the understanding that mass/energy IS conserved. GR says nothing about mass/energy conservation, one way or the other. It seems to be another example where the model is inapplicable. If the virtual particle/cosmological constant/dark energy model is realized ( currently gives way too large, non-sensical results ), then its based on 'borrowed' energy ( most likely gravitational potential ), and there is no mass/energy creation That would violate one of the most fundamental symmetries of our universe. ( IIRC E. Noether was working on the problem GR has with energy conservation when she came up with her theorem )

You do realize that energy density is NOT a conserved quantity ? Energy IS. You do realize that density is a quantity per unit volume ? If energy is conserved, but volume increases, then energy density MUST decrease.

If you make two depressions in a rubber sheet, the region between them will also be depressed compared to a part of the sheet at a large distance from the depressions. Similarly, if light passes through an equivalent region of curved space-time, its 'signal' will 'fall' into that area, and then has to climb out of that area of curved space-time to reach a distant observer. There is definitely gravitational acceleration.

You can call it anything you want, Overtone, but if the methods they use to control the populace are identical, that makes them equivalent in all but name. Some people in the former USSR did extremely well for themselves after the so-called fall of Communism. Much better than 'militarized and myth-justified corporate capitalist authoritarians'. In fact V. Putin is alleged to be the richest man in the world, with a ( possible ) net worth of some $200 bill. ( of course this is 'bastardized' Communism, not the ideal, but us humans tend to always strive for the best, and achieve the worst )

The 'bottom' of a gravitational well is the lowest energy position. Higher orbits are higher energy. The fact that in our frame it seems like the infalling mass is gaining kinetic is irrelevant. In its frame, it is in free fall and losing energy very quickly.

To be fair Capayan, the lines you bolded in your post above also apply to Communist states. I would venture to say that, historically, any far right OR far left government ( more accurately dictatorships ) have used the same extreme authoritarian methods. Maybe the political spectrum is circular such that the far right rejoins to the far left ?

Maybe if you were extremely close to the event... But the energy density needed to physically move your ship large distances ( I imagine you mean like surfing a wave, if even possible ) would lead to serious repercussions. Gravity and its associated effects, can't be shielded.

That article would actually be funny if it wasn't so depressingly true. You should also post it in the 'Competent Republicans' thread. Any 'Bozo' with money is welcome to run as a Republican these days.

Much more lively discussion about the issues being presented by Republican candidates, and less about Republicans as a group.Thanks guys. ( remember some of these people are your neighbors, or even family members ) By the way, T. Cruz may be intelligent, but he is using that intelligence to try and get elected by saying whatever he can get away with. That makes him competent at getting elected. None of the things he says are good for the country. That makes him incompetent to run the country. The two are different.

Not to be rude ( and not to defend Republicans ) but the OP is 'competent Republicans'. I'm on record as saying I don't think any of the contenders are competent, and If I could vote, I'd cast my vote for H. Clinton. Does this have to become another 'bit*h about Republicans' thread. We already have several. How about some constructive criticism along the lines of steps to rebuild the Republican party so that we again have a multiparty system and some choice in who to vote for. If no current Republicans pass the competency test, can you suggest anyone ( who is conservative ) that might make a good president that the people would back.

That's a much more robust argument, John. The fact that they vote ideologically to retain power/defeat opponents as opposed to doing what is best for the country. Or as you put it, 'playing political games'.

There is one flaw in your argument John. When you say... "Nobody who puts forward the idea of reducing benefits in circumstances where where those benefits are already inadequate, is competent to govern" the implication is that you think benefits are already inadequate, whereas someone like Tar ( maybe, maybe not ) might think that they are perfectly adequate. Now I may agree with you, but who decides what is an adequate benefit ? That makes your OPINION subjective, as is then, your OPINION of competency to govern. Just as Tar's OPINION that benefits are adequate ( if indeed he has that opinion ) is subjective. When we as a group, admonish Tar for having opinions, not based on facts, and refusing to change his mind when presented with our facts, we should make sure we are presenting facts and not opinions also. ( I was one of the people who complained about his posting 'style', and feel guilty that he's no longer participating. I certainly don't doubt his passion for what he believes )

The effect is akin to tidal forces. Stretching in one direction and compressing in the perpendicular direction. But it would fluctuate very fast.

I believe the original question was whether a gravitational wave could separate a virtual particle pair such that their 're-absorption' is impossible, thereby making them real. Their energy would then be 'lost' by the gravitational wave such that it dissipates over time/distance.

Don't share your views on limiting innovation to preserve labour intensive jobs, Ed. The leading countries in the world all became world leaders by embracing innovation. England in the 1800s, Germany in the late 1800s/early 1900s and the US in the middle 1900s. I have admired a few Republicans from previous years... I don't care what Overtone says, I always liked R. Reagan. Always liked J. McCain, but disliked M. Romney with a passion. I have never lost respect for R. Nixon since seeing the picture of him scolding and pointing his finger in Khrushchev's chest in the White House kitchen. Understand that these are all subjective opinions of them as people. None of the present contenders strike me as anyone I'd like to have a drink and a conversation with. I liked both J. Kennedy and L. Johnson ( who was probably a bigger womanizer than JFK ). And I bet B. Clinton has a few stories to tell ( about the bit*hes, my apologies to the ladies in the room ). I have admired B. Obama and what he ( at least ) tried to do. And of the present field of Democrats, I do like H, Clinton and would like to see her as President. Hopefully she doesn't get cought 'diddling' one of her interns ( male or female ). YOU GO GIRL !

The wave may not be analogous to an ocean wave. ( we've discussed this before on this forum ) So I'm not sure if the wave 'geometry' would lend itself to this effect, or what kind of gravitational gradient would be required. But it is a very interesting proposition for someone with much better understanding of the situation and the mathematics involved than I have, to look at.

WOW ! That is an incredible amount of mass to be converted to gravitational energy. The universe never ceases to amaze me.

Before you hang it all around S. Harper's neck, Willie, remember that it was a former Liberal finance minister in 1993, who later became PM for a short while, that reduced Health care transfer payments to the provinces from 50% to 16%. It was P. Martin, owner of Canada Steamship Lines, whose ships are registered in Liberia to avoid Canadian taxation, and who used private health care. He is after all, a billionaire. In Ontario this was conveniently blamed on the Conservative premier, M. Harris, and still is to this day. This of course doesn't absolve the terrible Conservative government Alberta has had since R Klein ( the drunk ) retired. They managed to squander away and turn to deficits what should have been surpluses of good times, and should have been turfed a long time ago. In these harder times, even the socialist NDP may have a hard time turning things around. See, even us 'nice' Canadians have bad politicians.