MigL

To be fair Phi, quite a few of Waitforufo's questions are valid questions, and iNow did an admirable job of addressing one of them. ( although Waitforufo's comment about blacks, welfare and Democrat voting blocks, in the above post is over the top ) That is called a discussion and is what I thought we were doing. So what's the problem ? Tar's ramblings on the other hand, are a reason I don't participate ( but still read ) this ( and another ) thread. And I've previously stated that reason.

I agree with imatfaal... More sex - Less everything else. But seriously, the fact that its a normal bodily function simply doesn't cut it as an excuse to do it in the alley or up against your neighbour's garage. I don't wanna see anyone sh*t or pi*s at the side of the road either ( unless I'm driving through France or other southern European countries ). Get a room people !

If on the other hand, you decide to continue your studies in Canada, UofT has a very good Aerospace Engineering program. It was one of my choices when I finished Gr13, but I went with Physics instead.

As swansont has already explained ( but you failed to understand ), a distance/recession red-shift is the relocation of known spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum. So an absorption or emission line for a specific element that we find in the yellow section of the Sun's spectrum, would be relocated to the red end for a receding star, and the blue end for an approaching star. The same holds true for galaxies and clusters ( unless you think they are made up of something else ). The CMB shift is the moving of the spectrum itself towards the longer wavelengths ( microwave ). This lengthening of the wave's timebase is solely due to expansion, more specifically it is proportional to the expansion factor ( approx. 1100 ). If we use the Sun's plasma as an example ( actually hotter than decoupling temperature ), it emits radiation centered about 600 nm. If we apply a 'stretch' to that radiation of 1000 we get a cooling to 0.0006m or 0.06 cm. And if I recall correctly the upper end of microwaves are at 0.1 cm. So 'back of an envelope' numbers do work out

I beg to differ with you all. The best sex is 'dirty' sex.

I've not heard of any satellites having orbital adjustments/corrections because of 'anomalies'. For known and explainable reasons I have, of course What 'anomalies' are we talking about here ?

Even though we call it the CMB 'temperature', it isn't like a gas temperature which decreases as the cube of the volume increase. It is actually the wavelength of the radiation which makes up the CMB that increases linearly with the same scaling factor as the expansion of the universe. So the scaling factor 1100 is the relevant one for the CMB. Edit Sorry messed that up. It should read " it isn't like a gas temperature that decreases as the volume, or cube of the distance, increase"

It must really bother you, Overtone, that people, who you consider NOT 'specifically good' people, or crazy people, or whining, spoiled and irresponsible ( for the past 40 yrs ) people, or people you consider your intellectual inferiors, have as much say in the government that represents them also, as you do. Do you want a link for the definition of DEMOCRACY ?

The universe does not have 'container walls' nor is it expanding into a vacuum, Carrock. That's why Mordred's analysis works. The CMB is a 'snapshot' of the uniformity of temperatures 300 mil yrs after the Big Bang. The minute variations of that time have developed into the features we see today ( galaxies , clusters, voids, etc. ) The photons that make up that 'snapshot' from 13.4 bil yrs ago have become 'stretched' in proportion with universal expansion, but they are trivially affected by the large scale structures of the present universe.

Don't see how this would work in ALL directions.

An excellent book which details the history and theory of black holes is Kip Thorne's 'Black Holes And Time Warps'. I can't recommend it enough. Its very informative and not math intensive. Incidentally Thorne is a student of J.A. Wheeler, who coined the 'no hair' term.

They can be encoded in any way that can be decoded at the other end as that would convey information. And if that information travelled faster than c it would 'break' causality. A boson that mediates an infinitely long range force like gravity or EM has to, by necessity, be massless. And massless particles always move at c .

I'm really not sure where you get this idea of time and space co-ordinate switching Sorcerer. Time ( and space ) proceed as normal for you as you approach and cross the event horizon of a Black Hole. What does happen, is that the light cone, separating time-like and space-like travel 'tips' over on its side ( towards the BH ). This makes the only possible place you can travel to, the singularity, as that is the only 'place' in your 'future'. As for the Kerr BH, I believe the inner horizon is the one 'modified' by angular momentum, while the outer is accounted for by the mass. And if the inner horizon is enlarged enough, by supplying enough angular momentum to the BH, then both are nullified, leaving a bare 'singularity'. Keep in mind I'm not exactly sure about this as its been a while and I don't feel like doing the 'research' at this time. Maybe one of the other members ( Mordred ? ) can clarify.

I always get those two mixed up also, ( sheepish grin )

In much more layman's terms... Entangled particles share a 'probability distribution'. Once you interact with one to determine its actual state, you also know the state of the other. From that point forward the particles will have separate 'probability distributions', so that subsequent measurements will no longer correlate.

I'm just going from memory here as its been quite a while since I even attempted to understand the Kerr solution... A rotating BH will have two event horizons, one inside the other, just like a charged BH ( Nordstrom solution ). Theoretically it should be possible for a BH to gain enough angular momentum such that the inner horizon moves outside the outer horizon and we are left with a 'naked' singularity. I don't think it could actually be realised though.

You can patent the process used. I don't think you can patent sperm. I'd hate to have a patent infringement case filed against me !

I have an idea elizsa. Why don't you go peddle this crap elsewhere ? ( oh look at that, its an opinion also )

Presenting ( and using ) incomplete evidence is no way to win an argument Confusi. That video you posted ( and drew wrong conclusions from ) shows an early model X-15 research plane, built by the former North American Aviation,; a ROCKET plane ( not jet ) designed to fly at hypersonic speeds for research into re-entry and aerodynamic heating. This 'plane' had extremely short, stubby and thick wings ( early version of lifting body concepts ), and had no chance of taking off on its own power. It had to be carried aloft under the wing of a B-52, and 'dropped' before igniting the rocket. This usually happened at fairly low altitude ( less than 30000 ft ) as a B-52's service ceiling is limited to about 36000 ft anyway. It would then climb, on rocket power, to a couple of hundred thousand ft, where its fuel would be spent, and it would begin a guided re-entry. Later models flown by NASA had two jettisonable fuel tanks for increased flight time. Unfortunately in the late 50s there were no head-up-displays to project information on the windscreen, so unless that view of the horizon includes a view of the instrument cluster, we have no idea at what altitude it is being filmed. To simply ASSUME that it is being filmed at max attainable altitude ( about 300000 ft ), instead of where it spends most of its time, either climbing under power, or descending in free fall/glide, as you do with your "Look at that flat horizon" comments is flat wrong ( see what I did there ? ).

That's an unusual way of expressing it, puppypower ( no, I didn't neg you ). You essentially said E of a photon is proportional to frequency/inversely proportional to wavelength, and not related at all to c ( because c is fixed or 'firmly planted' ). I don't see a problem with that, so I'm restoring your rep.

Please note, Sorcerer, that the event horizon doesn't rotate as it is a mathematical construct. The Penrose process ( didn't know it was due to Penrose ) is actually a process for extracting energy from a rotating BH.

Galaxies don't really 'grow'. Their mass is pretty constant as intergalactic space is very empty. Their present mass after 13.7 bill yrs is the result of gravitational accumulation of hydrogen/helium about quantum fluctuations in the primordial particle soup after the inflationary period ( yes, it was that homogenous ). Over the 13.7 bill yrs the hydrogen/helium has accumulated into stars, which have created heavier element dust, and so the number of stars in the galactic system may grow. Over that same period of time, at the center of the accumulation, the first giant ble stars formed, went supernova and created black holes. The 'shock waves' in the gas also spurred other star creation further out, and so on, and so on. Because of the high densities at the center of the accumulation, some of the resultant black holes would expand/merge over time creating the large central black hole. Once regular orbits had been established about this central gravitating mass, it would cease to be active and become dormant. This is the presnt day situation.

Dormant BHs don't usually change much as they have a steady but very small influx of mass. Active BHs are sometimes known as Quasars. They have a massive influx of mass, but a large portion of this influx is converted to energy as polar jets of radiation produced by the energetically rotating accretion disc. These active BHs can grow in size to millions of solar masses, and are present in the centers of galaxies, where the density is high enough to feed their voracious appetite.

Yes, please do. I'm at the point where I could use some 'reverse aging' ( eyesight and knees are shot ) Hey Jimmy, is that in reference to "Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead' ?

You cannot get rich off inanimate objects as 'rich' is relative. That top 1% got rich off of the bottom 99%. Take away the bottom 99% and you eliminate the source of the top's wealth. ( you can't have one without the other )